Search

The aim of this study was to evaluate the primary experience of implementing a quality system in a clinical laboratory. The second interrelated aim was to evaluate the quality and financial indicators needed for continuous measurement of quality, decision making in the laboratory management and everyday process control in analytical work. The quality process itself should be evaluated because the building up of a quality system requires a considerable amount of resources. The most effective and practical ways of using a quality system as a management tool should be found and the need for financial appraisal when the quality system is implemented is stressed. According to our study, when the effects of the quality system were evaluated, the managers of the laboratory had not considered the appropriate financial indicators. The quality indicators considered to be the best were internal quality control, external quality assessment and customer satisfaction surveys. The first benefits of the quality system evaluated by the personnel were other than the purely financial benefits, they include a more systematic and empowering approach to laboratory management, better working instructions, better knowledge of the methods and equipment, and fewer errors. The financial evaluation of a quality process in a public-owned clinical laboratory is complicated due to the fact that financial indicators are not as far developed and diverse as in industrial organisations. When starting to implement a quality system, it is important to pay attention to all measures that motivate the staff and help them benefit from the practical effects of the system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When the quality system of the health care organization is certified and the laboratory accredited, two different types of assessments are also performed. To reduce the extra work caused by these different assessments the Finnish Accreditation Service FINAS and SFS-Certification have made a pilot experiment in combining the assessments. Joint assessments have been a positive experience to the laboratory as well as to the assessing bodies, and we find this operating model worth developing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]