What's to Be Done About Laboratory Quality? Process Indicators, Laboratory Stewardship, the Outcomes Problem, Risk Assessment, and Economic Value: Responding to Contemporary Global Challenges

Effective and Efficient Delivery of Genome-Based Testing-What Conditions Are Necessary for Health System Readiness?

Health systems internationally must prepare for a future of genetic/genomic testing to inform healthcare decision-making while creating research opportunities. High functioning testing services will require additional considerations and health system conditions beyond traditional diagnostic testing. Based on a literature review of good practices, key informant interviews, and expert discussion, this article attempts to synthesize what conditions are necessary, and what good practice may look like. It is intended to aid policymakers and others designing future systems of genome-based care and care prevention. These conditions include creating communities of practice and healthcare system networks; resource planning; across-region informatics; having a clear entry/exit point for innovation; evaluative function(s); concentrated or coordinated service models; mechanisms for awareness and care navigation; integrating innovation and healthcare delivery functions; and revisiting approaches to financing, education and training, regulation, and data privacy and security. The list of conditions we propose was developed with an emphasis on describing conditions that would be applicable to any healthcare system, regardless of capacity, organizational structure, financing, population characteristics, standardization of care processes, or underlying culture.

Quality and performance indicators in Portuguese anatomical pathology laboratories: a panel validation by qualitative Delphi technique

Background

In laboratory medicine, quality and performance indicators (QPIs) are essential tools to ensure the quality of healthcare services and patient safety. QPIs allow comparison of outcomes, favouring accountability and transparency. Internationally, there are some QPI evaluation models, but the fact that they are paid limits their dissemination in smaller/poorer laboratories. In Portugal, each laboratory defines its own QPIs, with no uniformity between institutions. The development of a free QPI panel suitable for anatomical pathology laboratories (APLs) would allow for quality assessment and improvement.

Objective

To develop a consensual and validated QPI panel suitable for Portuguese APLs.

Methods

The study was developed in two stages. First, a bibliographic review was carried out, selecting the adequate QPIs. Afterwards, these QPIs were evaluated by experts through the Delphi method, where they could also suggest other pertinent QPIs.

Results

By the end of the Delphi method, there was a consensus on 64 QPIs (31 for ‘structure’, 30 for ‘process’ and 3 for ‘result’). The consensual QPIs covered all phases of the total test cycle. The lack of specific anatomical pathology QPIs in the bibliography was noticeable. There was greater consensus on ‘process’ and ‘result’ QPIs than on ‘structure’. This was supported by the bibliography, where the first ones were more valued. Nevertheless, it is important to monitor all the main laboratory processes, prioritising the evaluation of QPIs with greater impact on healthcare quality and patient safety. These results should allow APLs to identify the causes behind poor performance and improve their services.

Conclusions

This panel is a valuable tool for APLs, contributing to quality awareness. It can be the first step towards the development of a free benchmarking quality programme in Portugal, encouraging competitiveness and cost-efficiency.

Risk assessment of the total testing process based on quality indicators with the Sigma metrics

Background Evidence-based evaluation of laboratory performances including pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical stages of the total testing process (TTP) is crucial to ensure patients receiving safe, efficient and effective care. To conduct risk assessment, quality management tools such as Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and the Failure Reporting and Corrective Action System (FRACAS) were constantly used for proactive or reactive analysis, respectively. However, FMEA and FRACAS faced big challenges in determining the scoring scales and failure prioritization in the assessment of real-world cases. Here, we developed a novel strategy, by incorporating Sigma metrics into risk assessment based on quality indicators (QIs) data, to provide a more objective assessment of risks in TTP. Methods QI data was collected for 1 year and FRACAS was applied to produce the risk rating based on three variables: (1) Sigma metrics for the frequency of defects; (2) possible consequence; (3) detection method. The risk priority number (RPN) of each QI was calculated by a 5-point scale score, where a value of RPN > 50 was rated as high-risk. Results The RPNs of two QIs in post-analytical phase (TAT of Stat biochemistry analyte and Timely critical values notification) were above 50 which required rigorous monitoring and corrective actions to eliminate the high risks. Nine QIs (RPNs between 25 and 50) required further investigation and monitoring. After 3 months of corrective action the two identified high-risk processes were successfully reduced. Conclusions The strategy can be implemented to reduce identified risk and assuring patient safety.

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.

Designing a diagnostic Total Testing Process as a base for supporting diagnostic stewardship

To more comprehensively support clinical management of patients in our hospital, we redesigned the diagnostic Total Testing Process (TTP) from request to report. To that end, clinical needs were identified and a vision on Total Laboratory Automation (TLA) of the TTP was developed. The Delft Systems Engineering Approach was used for mapping a desirable laboratory testing process. The desirable "To Be" diagnostic process was tendered and the translation of a functional design into a specific TLA-configuration - compliant with the vision and the predefined functional design - was accomplished using a competitive dialogue tender variant (based on art. 29 of the EU guideline 2014/24). Realization of this high-end TLA-solution enabled a high-quality testing process with numerous improvements such as clear and supportive digital request forms, specimen consolidation, track and trace and non-conformity registration at the specimen level, better blood management (∼40% less blood sampled), lean and in line processing with increased productivity (42% rise in test productivity per capita), and guaranteed total turn-around-times of medical tests (95% of TLA-rooted in line tests are reported <120 min). The approach taken for improving the brain-to-brain loop of medical testing, as fundament for better diagnostic stewardship, is explained.

Changes in error rates in the Australian key incident monitoring and management system program

Introduction

The Key incident monitoring and management system program (KIMMS) program collects data for 19 quality indicators (QIs) from Australian medical laboratories. This paper aims to review the data submitted to see whether the number of errors with a higher risk priority number (RPN) have been reduced in preference to those with a lower RPN, and to calculate the cost of these errors.

Materials and methods

Data for QIs from 60 laboratories collected through the KIMMS program from 2015 until 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The results for each QI were averaged for the four-year average and coefficient of variation. To review the changes in QI frequency, the yearly averages for 2015 and 2018 were compared. By dividing the total RPN by 4 and multiplying that number by the cost of recollection of 30 AUD, it was possible to assign the risk cost of these errors.

Results

The analysis showed a drop in the overall frequency of incidents (6.5%), but a larger drop in risk (9.4%) over the period investigated. Recollections per year in Australia cost the healthcare industry 27 million AUD. If the RPN data is used, this cost increases to 66 million AUD per year.

Conclusions

Errors with a higher RPN have fallen more than those with lower RPN. The data shows that the errors associated with phlebotomy are the ones that have most improved. Further improvements require a better understanding of the root cause of the errors and to achieve this, work is required in the collection of the data to establish best-practice guidelines.

Informatics External Quality Assurance (IEQA) Down Under: evaluation of a pilot implementation

External quality assurance (EQA) provides ongoing evaluation to verify that laboratory medicine results conform to quality standards expected for patient care. While attention has focused predominantly on test accuracy, the diagnostic phases, consisting of pre- and post-laboratory phases of testing, have thus far lagged in the development of an appropriate diagnostic-phase EQA program. One of the challenges faced by Australian EQA has been a lack of standardisation or “harmonisation” resulting from variations in reporting between different laboratory medicine providers. This may introduce interpretation errors and misunderstanding of results by clinicians, resulting in a threat to patient safety. While initiatives such as the Australian Pathology Information, Terminology and Units Standardisation (PITUS) program have produced Standards for Pathology Informatics in Australia (SPIA), conformity to these requires regular monitoring to maintain integrity of data between sending (laboratory medicine providers) and receiving (physicians, MyHealth Record, registries) organisations’ systems. The PITUS 16 Informatics EQA (IEQA) Project together with the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs (RCPAQAP) has created a system to perform quality assurance on the electronic laboratory message when the laboratory sends a result back to the EQA provider. The purpose of this study was to perform a small scale pilot implementation of an IEQA protocol, which was performed to test the suitability of the system to check compliance of existing Health Level-7 (HL7 v2.4) reporting standards localised and constrained by the RCPA SPIA. Here, we present key milestones from the implementation, including: (1) software development, (2) installation, and verification of the system and communication services, (3) implementation of the IEQA program and compliance testing of the received HL7 v2.4 report messages, (4) compilation of a draft Informatics Program Survey Report for each laboratory and (5) review consisting of presentation of a report showing the compliance checking tool to each participating laboratory.

Clinical laboratory: bigger is not always better

Laboratory services around the world are undergoing substantial consolidation and changes through mechanisms ranging from mergers, acquisitions and outsourcing, primarily based on expectations to improve efficiency, increasing volumes and reducing the cost per test. However, the relationship between volume and costs is not linear and numerous variables influence the end cost per test. In particular, the relationship between volumes and costs does not span the entire platter of clinical laboratories: high costs are associated with low volumes up to a threshold of 1 million test per year. Over this threshold, there is no linear association between volumes and costs, as laboratory organization rather than test volume more significantly affects the final costs. Currently, data on laboratory errors and associated diagnostic errors and risk for patient harm emphasize the need for a paradigmatic shift: from a focus on volumes and efficiency to a patient-centered vision restoring the nature of laboratory services as an integral part of the diagnostic and therapy process. Process and outcome quality indicators are effective tools to measure and improve laboratory services, by stimulating a competition based on intra- and extra-analytical performance specifications, intermediate outcomes and customer satisfaction. Rather than competing with economic value, clinical laboratories should adopt a strategy based on a set of harmonized quality indicators and performance specifications, active laboratory stewardship, and improved patient safety.