Role of intervention on laboratory performance: evaluation of quality indicators in a tertiary care hospital.

Rachna Agarwal, Sujata Chaturvedi, Neelam Chhillar, Renu Goyal, Ishita Pant, Chandra B Tripathi
Author Information
  1. Rachna Agarwal: Department of Neurochemistry, Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences, Delhi, 110095 India.

Abstract

Quality in laboratory has huge impact on diagnosis and patient management as 80-90% of all diagnosis is made on the basis of laboratory tests. Monitoring of quality indicators covering the critical areas of pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical phases like sample misidentification, sample rejection, random and systemic errors, critical value reporting and TATs have a significant impact on performance of laboratory. This study was conducted in diagnostic laboratories receiving approximately 42,562 samples for clinical chemistry, hematology and serology. The list of quality indicators was developed for the steps of total testing process for which errors are frequent and improvements are possible. The trend was observed for all the QI before and after sensitisation of the staff over the period of 12 months. Incomplete test requisition form received in the lab was the most poor quality indicator observed (7.89%), followed by sample rejection rate (4.91%). Most significant improvement was found in pre- and post-analytical phase after sensitisation of staff but did not have much impact on analytical phase. Use of quality indicators to assess and monitor the quality system of the clinical laboratory services is extremely valuable tool in keeping the total testing process under control in a systematic and transparent way.

Keywords

References

  1. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008 Oct;132(10):1666-71 [PMID: 18834227]
  2. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007 Apr;131(4):588-92 [PMID: 17425389]
  3. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2004;42(6):578-82 [PMID: 15259371]
  4. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005 Oct;129(10):1252-61 [PMID: 16196513]
  5. Clin Chim Acta. 2009 Jun;404(1):32-6 [PMID: 19302993]
  6. Clin Chim Acta. 2009 Jun;404(1):16-23 [PMID: 19302995]
  7. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002 Apr;126(4):416-9 [PMID: 11900564]
  8. Clin Chim Acta. 2009 Jun;404(1):79-85 [PMID: 19328194]
  9. Clin Chim Acta. 2009 Jun;404(1):6-11 [PMID: 19302992]
  10. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002 Jun;126(6):663-9 [PMID: 12033953]
  11. Clin Chim Acta. 2009 Jun;404(1):28-31 [PMID: 19302996]
  12. N Engl J Med. 2005 Sep 29;353(13):1405-9 [PMID: 16192489]
  13. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007;45(4):462-6 [PMID: 17439321]
  14. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007;45(5):672-7 [PMID: 17484633]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0qualitylaboratoryphaseindicatorsimpactsampletestingprocessQualitydiagnosiscriticalanalyticalpost-analyticalrejectionerrorssignificantclinicaltotalobservedsensitisationstaffindicatorhugepatientmanagement80-90%madebasistestsMonitoringcoveringareaspre-analyticalphaseslikemisidentificationrandomsystemicvaluereportingTATsperformancestudyconducteddiagnosticlaboratoriesreceivingapproximately42562sampleschemistryhematologyserologylistdevelopedstepsfrequentimprovementspossibletrendQIperiod12 monthsIncompletetestrequisitionformreceivedlabpoor789%followedrate491%improvementfoundpre-muchUseassessmonitorsystemservicesextremelyvaluabletoolkeepingcontrolsystematictransparentwayRoleinterventionperformance:evaluationtertiarycarehospitalAnalyticalPatientsafetyPost-analyticalPre-analyticalTotal

Similar Articles

Cited By