Back to Search
Start Over
What's to Be Done About Laboratory Quality? Process Indicators, Laboratory Stewardship, the Outcomes Problem, Risk Assessment, and Economic Value: Responding to Contemporary Global Challenges.
- Source :
-
American journal of clinical pathology [Am J Clin Pathol] 2018 Feb 17; Vol. 149 (3), pp. 186-196. - Publication Year :
- 2018
-
Abstract
- Objectives: For 50 years, structure, process, and outcomes measures have assessed health care quality. For clinical laboratories, structural quality has generally been assessed by inspection. For assessing process, quality indicators (QIs), statistical monitors of steps in the clinical laboratory total testing, have proliferated across the globe. Connections between structural and process laboratory measures and patient outcomes, however, have rarely been demonstrated.<br />Methods: To inform further development of clinical laboratory quality systems, we conducted a selective but worldwide review of publications on clinical laboratory quality assessment.<br />Results: Some QIs, like seven generic College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks monitors, have demonstrated significant process improvement; other measures have uncovered critical opportunities to improve test selection and result management. The College of Pathologists of Australasia Key Indicator Monitoring and Management System has deployed risk calculations, introduced from failure mode effects analysis, as surrogate measures for outcomes. Showing economic value from clinical laboratory testing quality is a challenge.<br />Conclusions: Clinical laboratories should converge on fewer (7-14) rather than more (21-35) process monitors; monitors should cover all steps of the testing process under laboratory control and include especially high-risk specimen-quality QIs. Clinical laboratory stewardship, the combination of education interventions among clinician test orderers and report consumers with revision of test order formats and result reporting schemes, improves test ordering, but improving result reception is more difficult. Risk calculation reorders the importance of quality monitors by balancing three probabilities: defect frequency, weight of potential harm, and detection difficulty. The triple approach of (1) a more focused suite of generic consensus quality indicators, (2) more active clinical laboratory testing stewardship, and (3) integration of formal risk assessment, rather than competing with economic value, enhances it.
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1943-7722
- Volume :
- 149
- Issue :
- 3
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- American journal of clinical pathology
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 29471323
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqx135