Continual Improvement in Clinical Bacteriology Laboratory with Quality Indicators: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Introduction: Healthcare management is undergoing significant changes with the evolution of new and re-emerging infections. A clinical microbiologist plays an important role in giving an accurate and timely report to the clinicians. Quality Indicators (QIs) act as a measure of the quality of services offered by the laboratory and are tools to monitor and evaluate the laboratory's performance throughout the Total Testing Process (TTP). Aim: To measure the performance of the clinical bacteriology laboratory using QIs. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in the Department of Microbiology at Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. The study evaluated QIs from the records of 94,624 samples received in the bacteriology section of the clinical Microbiology laboratory between January 2018 and March 2021. Data analysis was conducted over a six-month period from December 2021 to May 2022. In 2018, one QI was identified for each phase, with an additional QI added in each phase to the pre-existing QI in 2019. In 2020, a QI was added in the preanalytical phase only. In 2021, the acceptable limit for one preanalytical QI was reduced from 2% to 1%. Data analysis was performed using an Excel sheet. Results: Data from records of 94,624 clinical bacteriology samples collected over 39 months were analyzed retrospectively. The preanalytical indicators included the number of samples rejected (135, 0.14%) and the number of requisition forms with three patient identifiers (59,645, 93.95%). Analytical phase QIs consisted of the average External Quality Assurance Scheme (EQAS) performance score (97.44% from January 2018 to March 2021) and outliers in the Internal Quality Control (IQC) (25 from January 2019 till March 2021). Failures in the IQC were not assessed in 2018. Postanalytical phase QIs included Turnaround Time (TAT) (average of 2.55 days for aerobic growth) and reporting time for critical alerts, which was within 24 hours of alert finding (100% for smear and culture-positive results). Conclusion: Regular monitoring of QIs helps to identify potential errors. This laboratory chose to analyse and monitor its processes using practically feasible QIs. It was found that the laboratory consistently maintained its performance throughout the study period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]