Benchmarking diagnostic laboratory performance: Survey results for Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
Benchmarks
Diagnostic quality
Medical laboratory
Patient safety
Questionnaire
Journal
Wiener klinische Wochenschrift
ISSN: 1613-7671
Titre abrégé: Wien Klin Wochenschr
Pays: Austria
ID NLM: 21620870R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
04
01
2021
accepted:
24
09
2021
pubmed:
29
10
2021
medline:
23
2
2022
entrez:
28
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The need for patient safety through consistent diagnostic performance has increasingly been brought into focus during the last two decades. Around the globe operational efficiency of diagnostic laboratories plays a key role in satisfying this need, which has impressively been shown during the recent months of the SARS-CoV‑2 pandemic. On a global level, however, there has been a lack to collate and benchmark data for diagnostic laboratories. The goals of this study were to design and pilot a questionnaire addressing key aspects of diagnostic laboratory management. The questionnaire was designed using an iterative process and taking into consideration information that could be extracted from the literature, author experience and feedback from informal focus groups of laboratory professionals. The resulting tool consisted of 50 items, either relating to general information or more specifically addressing the topics of "operational performance", "integrated clinical care performance", and "financial sustainability". A limited number of laboratories were surveyed to be able to further improve the newly developed tool and motivate the global laboratory community to participate in further benchmarking activity. Altogether, 65 laboratories participated in the survey, 42 were hospital laboratories and 23 were commercial laboratories. Potential for further improvement and standardization became apparent across the board, e.g. use of IT for order management, auto-validation, or turn-around time (TAT) monitoring. Notably, a gap was identified regarding services provided to physicians, in particular "reflexive test suggestions", "proactive consultation on complex cases", and "diagnostic pathways guidance", which were only provided by about two thirds of laboratories. Concordantly, within-laboratory TAT (Lab TAT) was monitored by about 80% of respondents, while sample-to-result TAT, which is arguably the TAT most relevant to clinicians, was only monitored by 32% of respondents. Altogether, the need for stronger integration of the laboratory into the clinical care process became apparent and should be a main trajectory of future laboratory management.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
OBJECTIVE
The need for patient safety through consistent diagnostic performance has increasingly been brought into focus during the last two decades. Around the globe operational efficiency of diagnostic laboratories plays a key role in satisfying this need, which has impressively been shown during the recent months of the SARS-CoV‑2 pandemic. On a global level, however, there has been a lack to collate and benchmark data for diagnostic laboratories. The goals of this study were to design and pilot a questionnaire addressing key aspects of diagnostic laboratory management.
METHODS
METHODS
The questionnaire was designed using an iterative process and taking into consideration information that could be extracted from the literature, author experience and feedback from informal focus groups of laboratory professionals. The resulting tool consisted of 50 items, either relating to general information or more specifically addressing the topics of "operational performance", "integrated clinical care performance", and "financial sustainability". A limited number of laboratories were surveyed to be able to further improve the newly developed tool and motivate the global laboratory community to participate in further benchmarking activity.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Altogether, 65 laboratories participated in the survey, 42 were hospital laboratories and 23 were commercial laboratories. Potential for further improvement and standardization became apparent across the board, e.g. use of IT for order management, auto-validation, or turn-around time (TAT) monitoring. Notably, a gap was identified regarding services provided to physicians, in particular "reflexive test suggestions", "proactive consultation on complex cases", and "diagnostic pathways guidance", which were only provided by about two thirds of laboratories. Concordantly, within-laboratory TAT (Lab TAT) was monitored by about 80% of respondents, while sample-to-result TAT, which is arguably the TAT most relevant to clinicians, was only monitored by 32% of respondents. Altogether, the need for stronger integration of the laboratory into the clinical care process became apparent and should be a main trajectory of future laboratory management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34709471
doi: 10.1007/s00508-021-01962-4
pii: 10.1007/s00508-021-01962-4
pmc: PMC8552210
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
174-181Informations de copyright
© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Science. 2010 Jul 23;329(5990):399-400
pubmed: 20651141
Clin Lab Med. 2019 Jun;39(2):245-257
pubmed: 31036278
J Allied Health. 2018 Fall;47(3):222-227
pubmed: 30194830
Nat Biotechnol. 2020 Jul;38(7):788-789
pubmed: 32555347
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2017 Aug 28;55(10):1478-1488
pubmed: 28688224
JAMA. 1981 May 1;245(17):1762-3
pubmed: 7218491
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018 Sep 25;56(10):1644-1654
pubmed: 29794248
Diagnosis (Berl). 2020 Aug 31;8(2):257-268
pubmed: 32866114
Ann Clin Biochem. 2011 May;48(Pt 3):238-40
pubmed: 21367882
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015 Jun;139(6):762-75
pubmed: 26030245
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2006;44(6):750-9
pubmed: 16729864
Clin Chim Acta. 2009 Jun;404(1):79-85
pubmed: 19328194
Clin Biochem. 2017 Jul;50(10-11):625-631
pubmed: 28336392
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016 Jul 1;54(7):1119-22
pubmed: 26641971
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Aug 23;19(1):171
pubmed: 31443706
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2002 Mar;40(3):312-9
pubmed: 12005224
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Oct 25;58(11):1795-1797
pubmed: 32412438
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 04;11(3):e0149856
pubmed: 26942417
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2019 May 27;57(6):812-821
pubmed: 30511924
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018 Feb 23;56(3):454-462
pubmed: 28941351
Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Oct;509:67-71
pubmed: 32505771
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 9;169(20):1881-7
pubmed: 19901140