Reducing delay in laboratory reports for outpatients from 16% to <3% at a non-profit hospital in New Delhi, India

Establishing Self-Harm Registers: The Role of Process Mapping to Improve Quality of Surveillance Data Globally

Self-harm registers (SHRs) are an essential means of monitoring rates of self-harm and evaluating preventative interventions, but few SHRs exist in countries with the highest burden of suicides and self-harm. Current international guidance on establishing SHRs recommends data collection from emergency departments, but this does not adequately consider differences in the provision of emergency care globally. We aim to demonstrate that process mapping can be used prior to the implementation of an SHR to understand differing hospital systems. This information can be used to determine the method by which patients meeting the SHR inclusion criteria can be most reliably identified, and how to mitigate hospital processes that may introduce selection bias into these data. We illustrate this by sharing in detail the experiences from a government hospital and non-profit hospital in south India. We followed a five-phase process mapping approach developed for healthcare settings during 2019-2020. Emergency care provided in the government hospital was accessed through casualty department triage. The non-profit hospital had an emergency department. Both hospitals had open access outpatient departments. SHR inclusion criteria overlapped with conditions requiring Indian medicolegal registration. Medicolegal registers are the most likely single point to record patients meeting the SHR inclusion criteria from multiple emergency care areas in India (e.g., emergency department/casualty, outpatients, other hospital areas), but should be cross-checked against registers of presentations to the emergency department/casualty to capture less-sick patients and misclassified cases. Process mapping is an easily reproducible method that can be used prior to the implementation of an SHR to understand differing hospital systems. This information is pivotal to choosing which hospital record systems should be used for identifying patients and to proactively reduce bias in SHR data. The method is equally applicable in low-, middle- and high-income countries.

Lean and Six Sigma as continuous quality improvement frameworks in the clinical diagnostic laboratory

Processes to enhance customer-related services in healthcare organizations are complex and it can be difficult to achieve efficient patient-focused services. Laboratories make an integral part of the healthcare service industry where healthcare providers deal with critical patient results. Errors in these processes may cost a human life, create a negative impact on an organization's reputation, cause revenue loss, and open doors for expensive lawsuits. To overcome these complexities, healthcare organizations must implement an approach that helps healthcare service providers to reduce waste, variation, and work imbalance in the service processes. Lean and Six Sigma are used as continuous process improvement frameworks in laboratory medicine. Six Sigma uses an approach that involves problem-solving, continuous improvement and quantitative statistical process control. Six Sigma is a technique based on the DMAIC process (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) to improve quality performance. Application of DMAIC in a healthcare organization provides guidance on how to handle quality that is directed toward patient satisfaction in a healthcare service industry. The Lean process is a technique for process management in which waste reduction is the primary purpose; this is accomplished by implementing waste mitigation practices and methodologies for quality improvement. Overall, this article outlines the frameworks for continuous quality and process improvement in healthcare organizations, with a focus on the impacts of Lean and Six Sigma on the performance and quality service delivery system in clinical laboratories. It also examines the role of utilization management and challenges that impact the implementation of Lean and Six Sigma in clinical laboratories.

Baseline assessment of staff perception of critical value practices in government hospitals in Kuwait

Background

Notification of laboratory-determined critical values is key for effective clinical decision making and is thus a consequential step in a patient’s health care and safety. This study presents an overview of staff reporting policies and procedures concerning critical values in Kuwaiti governmental hospitals.

Methods

A cross-sectional descriptive study design was adopted. Study subjects were affiliated with laboratories from five government hospitals (four general and one sub-specialty hospital). All laboratory staff in every hospital were included. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version 23) was used to analyse the collected data at a significance level of ≤ 0.05. Quantitative data analysis included univariate descriptive (means, medians, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) and bivariate (chi-squared, ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis tests) analyses. These analyses provided associations between participating hospitals and staff perceptions towards the policies and procedures surrounding critical values.

Results

559 questionnaires were returned, a total response of 30.5% after those of 79 phlebotomists were excluded (eligible sample size n = 1833). The notification of critical values differs between participated laboratories in delivering protocol and time duration. Linked protocols between laboratories did not exist regarding policies and guidelines for applying the same procedures for critical value notification. There are differences in critical value limits among the participating laboratories.

Conclusion

This study is the first to survey laboratory staff perceptions of critical value practices in Kuwaiti government hospitals. Enhancing critical value reporting and policy is crucial for improving patient safety and to develop high-quality health services. The findings of this study can help policy makers implement future intervention studies to enhance laboratory practices in the area of critical values and improve patient safety and the quality of government hospital systems.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08329-z.