Diagnostic laboratories in Asia Pacific region: Investigation on quality characteristics and time of reporting

Benchmarking medical laboratory performance: survey validation and results for Europe, Middle East, and Africa

OBJECTIVES

Medical laboratory performance is a relative concept, as are quality and safety in medicine. Therefore, repetitive benchmarking appears to be essential for sustainable improvement in health care. The general idea in this approach is to establish a reference level, upon which improvement may be strived for and quantified. While the laboratory community traditionally is highly aware of the need for laboratory performance and public scrutiny is more intense than ever due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, few initiatives span the globe. The aim of this study was to establish a good practice approach towards benchmarking on a high abstraction level for three key dimensions of medical laboratory performance, generate a tentative snapshot of the current state of the art in the region of Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA), and thus set the stage for global follow-up studies.

METHODS

The questionnaire used and previously published in this initiative consisted of 50 items, roughly half relating to laboratory operations in general with the other half addressing more specific topics. An international sample of laboratories from EMEA was approached to elicit high fidelity responses with the help of trained professionals. Individual item results were analyzed using standard descriptive statistics. Dimensional reduction of specific items was performed using exploratory factor analysis and assessed with confirmatory factor analysis, resulting in individual laboratory scores for the three subscales of "Operational performance", "Integrated clinical care performance", and "Financial sustainability".

RESULTS

Altogether, 773 laboratories participated in the survey, of which 484 were government hospital laboratories, 129 private hospital laboratories, 146 commercial laboratories, and 14 were other types of laboratories (e.g. research laboratories). Respondents indicated the need for digitalization (e.g. use of IT for order management, auto-validation), automation (e.g. pre-analytics, automated sample transportation), and establishment of formal quality management systems (e.g. ISO 15189, ISO 9001) as well as sustainably embedding them in the fabric of laboratory operations. Considerable room for growth also exists for services provided to physicians, such as "Diagnostic pathways guidance", "Proactive consultation on complex cases", and "Real time decision support" which were provided by less than two thirds of laboratories. Concordantly, the most important kind of turn-around time (TAT) for clinicians, sample-to-result TAT, was monitored by only 40% of respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Altogether, the need for stronger integration of laboratories into the clinical care process became apparent and should be a main trajectory of future laboratory management. Factor analysis confirmed the theoretical constructs of the questionnaire design phase, resulting in a reasonably valid tool for further benchmarking activities on the three aimed-for key dimensions.

Benchmarking diagnostic laboratory performance: Survey results for Germany, Austria, and Switzerland

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

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

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.

What factors are associated with improvements in productivity in clinical laboratories in the Asia Pacific Region?

INTRODUCTION

Clinical laboratories usually have a quality management system such as ISO 15189, which provides a framework for quality and competence to perform medical testing and internal systems such as audit and nonconformance to ensure consistent processes. However, organizations need to have access to internal procedures and external competitors' performance to improve their operations. These are often seen as commercial or areas where it is difficult to agree on an acceptable goal.

METHOD

In 2019, 1158 laboratories from 17 countries/regions in the Asia Pacific Region answered the survey, including 399 Chinese sites. The survey collected information on quality, turnaround time and productivity.

RESULTS

Median productivity for laboratories in the Asia Pacific Region not including Chinese sites was 25 samples/FTE/day for small laboratories (workload: <250 samples/day), 100 for medium-sized laboratories (workload: 251-1000 samples/day) and 220 for large laboratories (workload: >1001 samples/day). The parameters associated with increased productivity in some laboratories were automation, middleware, Lean Six Sigma quality improvement activities and International Accreditation.

CONCLUSION

This survey provides evidence of an association of quality improvement activities on laboratory productivity. There are differences in the effect of these activities in Chinese and non-Chinese laboratories in the Asia Pacific Region. The survey confirmed that the implementation of automation is associated with increased median productivity in all sites. Implementation of Lean Six Sigma and International Accreditation is associated with increased productivity in large laboratories.

Integrating quality control and external quality assurance

Effective management of clinical laboratories relies upon an understanding of Quality Control and External Quality Assurance principles. These processes, when applied effectively, reduce patient risk and drive quality improvement. In this Review, we will describe the purpose of QC and EQA and their role in identifying analytical and process error. The two concepts are linked, and we will illustrate that linkage. Some EQA providers offer far more than analytical surveillance. They facilitate training and education and extend quality improvement and identify areas where there is potential for patient harm into the pre-and post-analytical phases of the total testing process.

Turnaround times and modes of reporting critical results in Asian laboratories

BACKGROUND

Reporting critical results in a timely manner is a crucial role of clinical laboratories. Traditionally, these results were reported using the phone or fax system. However, there are now other modes of communication for this reporting. Quality improvement in any organization is driven by detection of errors and benchmarking against peers. In the case of critical result reporting, there are few current widely used Benchmarking schemes.

METHODS

The Roche Clinical Chemistry Benchmarking Survey in 2019 added questions about critical result reporting including the mode of communication and turnaround time key performance index. This survey includes over 1100 laboratories from 20 countries.

RESULTS

The survey revealed a range of communication strategies with phone calls still the commonest followed by email. The key performance index for most laboratories was less than 10 min.

CONCLUSION

Benchmarking can provide key information for quality improvement activities, particularly pre- and postanalytical.

Diagnostic Laboratories in India: Investigating Quality Characteristics, Productivity and Time of Reporting

This is the result of a Survey of diagnostics laboratories in the Asia Pacific (APAC) region with perspectives on India, investigating the three key aspects that are central to the success of a laboratory: quality, cost and speed. This Survey provides a comparison in selected performance indicators in a large number of diagnostic laboratories in a broad range of countries in the APAC region. The Survey provides data on some key performance characteristics such as quality improvement activities, staff productivity and Turnaround Time (TAT). This Survey also demonstrates in India the common issues facing all the laboratories surveyed but also common solutions using a Quality Systems approach which involves Accreditation, customer responsiveness, greater use of IT, automation and Lean principles. Indian laboratories reported less automation and fewer laboratories have Laboratory Information Systems. The productivity by various measures in Indian laboratories was less than in other APAC laboratories. TAT was more commonly monitored in the Indian specimens though there were fewer laboratories compared with the APAC specimens where there were separate TATs for Short Turnaround Time and Routine specimens.