Phases Of Total Testing Process Research Articles

Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: state-of-the-art, quality specifications and future strategies.

In the last few decades, quality in laboratory medicine has evolved in concert with the transformation and the changes (technological, scientific and organizational) in this sector. Laboratory professionals have faced great challenges, at times being overwhelmed, yetalso involved in this progress. Worldwide, laboratory professionals and scientific societies involved in laboratory medicine have raised awareness concerning the need to identify new quality assurance tools that are effective in reducing the error rate and enhancing patient safety, in addition to Internal Quality Control (IQC) procedures and the participation in the External Quality Assessment Schemes (EQAS). The use of Quality Indicators (QIs), specifically designed for laboratory medicine are effective inassessing and monitoring all critical events occurring inthe different phases of Total Testing Process (TTP), in particular, in the extra-analytical phases. The Model ofQuality Indicators (MQI), proposed by the Working Group "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" (WG-LEPS) of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry andLaboratory Medicine (IFCC) and validated by experts in consensus conferences, is an important window of opportunity for the medical laboratory to demonstrate the use of an effective quality assurance tool fit for this purpose. Aim of this paper is to provide an update of the state-of-the-art concerning the most used QIs data collected in 2021 and the Quality Specifications (QSs) proposed for their evaluation. Moreover, a strategy for the future is proposed in order to improve the MQI and encourage its use in medical laboratories throughout the world.

'Penelope test': a practical instrument for checking appropriateness of laboratory tests.

In medical laboratories, the appropriateness challenge directly revolves around the laboratory test and its proper selection, data analysis, and result reporting. However, laboratories have also a role in the appropriate management of those phases of total testing process (TTP) that traditionally are not under their direct control. So that, the laboratory obligation to act along the entire TTP is now widely accepted in order to achieve better care management. Because of the large number of variables involved inthe overall TTP structure, it is difficult to monitor appropriateness in real time. However, it is possible to retrospectively reconstruct the body of the clinical process involved in the management of a specific laboratory test totrack key passages that may be defective or incomplete interms of appropriateness. Here we proposed an appropriateness check-list scheme along the TTP chain to be potentially applied to any laboratory test. This scheme consists of a series of questions that healthcare professionals should answer to achieve laboratory test appropriateness. In the system, even a single lacking answer may compromise the integrity of all appropriateness evaluation process as the inability to answer may involve a significant deviation from the optimal trajectory, which compromise the test appropriateness and the quality of subsequent steps. Using two examples of the check-list application, we showed that the proposed instrument mayoffer an objective help to avoid inappropriate use of laboratory tests in an integrated way involving both laboratory professionals and user clinicians.

National surveys on 15 quality indicators for the total testing process in clinical laboratories of China from 2015 to 2017.

Background As effective quality management tools, quality indicators (QIs) are widely used in laboratory medicine. This study aimed to analyze the results of QIs, identify errors and provide quality specifications (QSs) based on the state-of-the-art. Methods Clinical laboratories all over China participated in the QIs survey organized by the National Health Commission of People' Republic of China from 2015 to 2017. Most of these QIs were selected from a common model of QIs (MQI) established by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). All participants were asked to submit general information and original QIs data through a medical quality control data collection system. The results of QIs were reported in percentages and sigma, except turnaround time (TAT) which was measured in minutes. The 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles were, respectively, calculated as three levels of QSs, which were defined starting from the model proposed during the 1st Strategic Conference of the EFLM on "Defining analytical performance 15 years after the Stockholm Conference on Quality Specification in Laboratory Medicine". Results A total of 76 clinical laboratories from 25 provinces in China continuously participated in this survey and submitted complete data for all QIs from 2015 to 2017. In general, the performance of all reported QIs have improved or at least kept stable over time. Defect percentages of blood culture contamination were the largest in the pre-analytical phase. Intra-laboratory TAT was always larger than pre-examination TAT. Percentage of tests covered by inter-laboratory comparison was relatively low than others in the intra-analytical phase. The performances of critical values notification and timely critical values notification were the best with 6.0σ. The median sigma level of incorrect laboratory reports varied from 5.5σ to 5.7σ. Conclusions QSs of QIs provide useful guidance for laboratories to improve testing quality. Laboratories should take continuous quality improvement measures in all phases of total testing process to ensure safe and effective tests.

Congruity in Quality Indicators and Laboratory Performance.

Proficiency of laboratory services is the mainstay in clinical medicine in providing error free diagnostic results. The efficiency of the laboratory needs to be evaluated as per standard international criterion. The quality indicators of the different phases of total testing process are considered the fundamental measurable tool for evaluation of laboratory performance. In order to optimize the laboratory's proficiency and accreditate it as per international standard in our newly established lab, the study was conducted to evaluate the frequency of errors incurred by laboratory and nonlaboratory professionals during the whole testing process. Retrospective analysis was done for data received from April 2016 to Dec 2016 in our lab. Total number of samples received was 61,674, out of which 43200 samples could be analyzed for quality indicators. Total numbers of tests processed in these samples were 172,800. In the study samples, 26.5% errors were due to pre-analytical factors whereas 9.4% of errors were contributed by analytical phase and 18% by post-analytical phase. Inappropriateness of test requisition was observed to be the major attributing determinant for pre-analytical errors. Instrumentation efficiency in form of frequent breakdown (~7%), greatly affected the proficiency of analytical phase in our lab. 12% of post-analytical errors were ascribed by excessive turn-around-time. However, timeliness of critical value call out and reporting for STAT samples revealed high proficiency up to 97%. High error rates were observed in pre-pre- and pre-analytical phases that also accorded for high error frequency in post analytical phase. This emphasizes urgent need to formulate guidelines for processing all steps of total testing process and initiate strategic measures for reducing risk of errors and increasing patient safety.

Preliminary probe of quality indicators and quality specification in total testing process in 5753 laboratories in China.

The aim of the study was to promote the establishment and implementation of quality indicators (QIs) in clinical laboratories, catch up with the state of art, and provide preliminary quality specifications for established QIs. Clinical laboratories from different provinces in China were included in this QIs survey in 2015. All participants were asked to collect data related to QIs and complete QIs questionnaires. Defect percentages and sigma values were calculated for each QI. The 25th percentile, median, and the 75th percentile of defect percentages and TATs were calculated as optimum, desirable and minimum quality specifications. While 25th, median, and 75th of sigma values were calculated as minimum, desirable and optimum quality specifications, respectively. Five thousand seven hundred and fifty-three clinical laboratories from 28 provinces in China participated in this survey. Median defect percentages of pre-examination QIs varied largely from 0.01% (incorrect sample container) to 0.57% (blood culture contamination) with sigma values varied from 4.0σ to 5.1σ. Median defect percentages of examination phase QIs were all really high. The most common problem in examination phase was test uncovered by inter-laboratory comparison (86.67%). Defect percentages of critical values notification and timely critical values notification were all 0.00% (6.0σ). While the median of defect percentages of incorrect laboratory reports was only 0.01% (5.4σ). Improvements are needed in all phases of total testing process (TTP) in laboratories in China, especially in examination phase. More attention should be paid when microbiology specimens are collected and results are reported. Quality specifications can provide directions for laboratories to make effort for.

Laboratory network of excellence: enhancing patient safety and service effectiveness / Labor-Network of Excellence: bessere Sicherheit für Patienten und effektivere Labordienstleistungen

Abstract Clinical laboratories have undergone major changes due to technological progress and economic pressure. While costs of laboratory testing continue to be the dominant issue within the healthcare service worldwide, quality, effectiveness and impact on outcomes are also emerging as critical value-added features. Five Italian laboratories are therefore promoting a network of excellence by investigating markers of effectiveness of laboratory services and sharing their experience of using them in clinical practice. In the present study we report preliminary data on indicators of quality in all phases of the so-called total testing process, the key to evaluating all phases of the total testing process, including the appropriateness of test requests and data interpretation. Initial findings in evaluating pre-analytical causes of specimen rejection in three different laboratories and the effects of introducing three laboratory clinical guidelines are reported. These data should stimulate debate in the scientific community and encourage more clinical laboratories to use the same indicators to improve clinical effectiveness and clinical outcomes within the healthcare service.

Laboratory network of excellence: enhancing patient safety and service effectiveness

Clinical laboratories have undergone major changes due to technological progress and economic pressure. While costs of laboratory testing continue to be the dominant issue within the healthcare service worldwide, quality, effectiveness and impact on outcomes are also emerging as critical value-added features. Five Italian laboratories are therefore promoting a network of excellence by investigating markers of effectiveness of laboratory services and sharing their experience of using them in clinical practice. In the present study we report preliminary data on indicators of quality in all phases of the so-called total testing process, the key to evaluating all phases of the total testing process, including the appropriateness of test requests and data interpretation. Initial findings in evaluating pre-analytical causes of specimen rejection in three different laboratories and the effects of introducing three laboratory clinical guidelines are reported. These data should stimulate debate in the scientific community and encourage more clinical laboratories to use the same indicators to improve clinical effectiveness and clinical outcomes within the healthcare service.