Data collection

DEMO DATA

One record per investigation episode. Pseudonymised references only — never enter direct patient identifiers.

Demo mode
Preview only — nothing is saved
You can complete the full form to preview the workflow. Sign in through the Lazomis QI workspace to record live, organisation-scoped submissions.
Episode identification
Pseudonymised identifiers and collection metadata.
Patient context
Non-identifiable context fields only.
Investigation details
What was requested, how urgently and against which local timeframe.
Timings
Date and time at each stage. Leave blank where not applicable or not determinable.
Delay classification
Where the delay occurred and why.
Impact
Effect on management, discharge, length of stay, safety and patient experience.
Structured assessment
Answer for each item. Use Not applicable or Unable to determine where the record does not support a judgement.

Request completed correctly and suitable for acceptance

Request accepted, vetted or protocolled within expected timeframe

Investigation performed within expected timeframe

Result reviewed within expected timeframe

Result actioned within expected timeframe

Investigation required before diagnosis could be made

Investigation required before treatment decision

Investigation required before discharge

Investigation required before referral

Could safely have been completed as outpatient / planned return

Outpatient / ambulatory option was considered and documented

Criteria to reside affected by the delay

Discharge readiness affected by the delay

Expected discharge date reviewed or updated

Escalation was required under local policy

Escalation was completed and documented

Senior review of the pending investigation documented

Diagnostic service or specialist team contacted

Alternative investigation or pathway considered

Interim clinical management plan documented

Contingency plan documented

Review of the result documented in the record

Abnormal or significant result actioned / escalated

Follow-up plan documented for outstanding investigation

Discharge summary records outstanding investigation / action

Patient informed about the delay or follow-up

Delayed-investigation safety concern identified

Audit criteria (28)
Compliance judgement against each criterion for this episode.

1. Clinical indication for the investigation was documented.

2. Investigation urgency or priority was documented.

3. Investigation was requested within the locally expected timeframe after it became clinically indicated.

4. Investigation request was complete and suitable for acceptance, vetting or scheduling.

5. Investigation was accepted, vetted, triaged or protocolled within local expected timeframe where required.

6. Investigation was performed or sample was taken within the locally expected timeframe.

7. Result was available within the locally expected timeframe.

8. Result was reviewed by the clinical team within the locally expected timeframe.

9. Result was actioned within the locally expected timeframe where action was required.

10. Abnormal or clinically significant result was escalated where required.

11. Delay stage was identifiable from the record.

12. Reason for delay was documented where applicable.

13. Interim clinical management plan was documented while awaiting the investigation where relevant.

14. Alternative investigation or pathway was considered where appropriate.

15. Outpatient, ambulatory, planned return or community diagnostic option was considered where the patient was otherwise discharge ready and this was safe.

16. Criteria-to-reside or discharge readiness impact was documented where relevant.

17. Expected discharge date was reviewed or updated where the investigation affected discharge.

18. Impact on diagnosis was documented or inferable.

19. Impact on treatment decision was documented or inferable.

20. Impact on discharge or length of stay was documented or inferable.

21. Investigation delay was escalated according to local policy where escalation criteria were met.

22. Diagnostic service, senior clinician or specialist team was contacted where required.

23. Follow-up plan was documented where investigation was outstanding at discharge or converted to outpatient / planned return.

24. Discharge summary included outstanding investigation, result, action or follow-up where relevant.

25. Patient was informed about delayed investigation or follow-up where appropriate.

26. Safety concern was identified and actioned where investigation delay created clinical risk.

27. Documentation was clear enough for another clinician or coordinator to understand the investigation status, delay reason, owner and next action.

28. Any delayed-investigation-related patient safety concern was escalated or actioned where identified.

Comments and improvement
Free-text context used in findings, reports and improvement planning.
Clinical safety prompt
Ensure any immediate clinical deterioration, abnormal result, missed result, suspected serious diagnosis, delayed cancer or time-critical investigation concern, unsafe discharge concern, contrast/renal risk, communication failure or delayed-investigation-related patient safety concern is escalated through local clinical, diagnostic, operational and governance pathways. Do not rely on this audit tool for urgent escalation or diagnostic decision-making.