Seven Q-Tracks monitors of laboratory quality drive general performance improvement: experience from the College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks program 1999-2011

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.

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.

Three years' experience of quality monitoring program on pre-analytical errors in china

Background

Various errors in the procedure of specimen collection have been reported as the primary causes of pre‐analytical errors. The aim of this study was to monitor and assess the reasons and frequencies of rejected samples in China.

Methods

A pre‐analytical external quality assessment (EQA) scheme involving six quality indicators (QIs) was conducted from 2017 to 2019. Rejection rate was calculated for each QI. The difference of the rejection rates over the time was checked by Chi‐square test. Furthermore, the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the results from total laboratories each year were calculated as optimum, desirable, and minimum level of performance specifications.

Results

In total, 423 laboratories submitted data continuously for six EQA rounds. The overall rejection rates were 0.2042%, 0.1709%, 0.1942%, 0.1689%, 0.1593%, and 0.1491%, respectively. The most common error was sample hemolysed (0.0514%–0.0635%), and the least one was sample not received (0.0008%–0.0014%). A significant reduction in percentages was observed for all QIs. For biochemistry and immunology, hemolysis accounted for more than half of the rejection causes, while for hematology, the primary cause shifted from incorrect fill level to sample clotted. The quality specifications had improved over time, except for the optimum level.

Conclusion

The significant reduction in error rates on sample rejection we observed suggested that laboratories should pay more attention to the standardized specimen collection. We also provide a benchmark for QIs performance specification to help laboratories increase awareness about the critical aspects in the need of improvement actions.

Continual improvement of the pre-analytical process in a public health laboratory with quality indicators-based risk management

Background Quality indicators (QIs) and risk management are important tools for a quality management system designed to reduce errors in a laboratory. This study aimed to show the effectiveness of QI-based risk management for the continual improvement of pre-analytical processes in the Kayseri Public Health Laboratory (KPHL) which serves family physicians and collects samples from peripheral sampling units. Methods QIs of pre-analytical process were used for risk assessment with the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) method. Percentages and risk priority numbers (RPNs) of QIs were quantified. QI percentages were compared to the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) performance specifications and RPNs were compared to risk level scale, and corrective actions planned if needed. The effectiveness of risk treatment actions was re-evaluated with the new percentages and with RPNs of predefined QIs. Results RPNs related to four QIs required corrective action according to the risk evaluation scale. After risk treatment, the continual improvement was achieved for performance and risk level of "transcription errors", for risk levels of "misidentified samples" and "not properly stored samples" and for the performance of "hemolyzed samples". "Not properly stored samples" had the highest risk score because of sample storage and centrifugation problems of peripheral sampling units which are not under the responsibility of the KPHL. Conclusions Public health laboratories may have different risk priorities for pre-analytical process. Risk management based on predefined QIs can decrease the risk levels and increase QI performance as evidence-based examples for continual improvement of the pre-analytical process.

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.

Automation and Process Re-engineering Work Together to Achieve Six Sigma Quality: A 27-Year History of Continuous Improvement

BACKGROUND

In most clinical laboratories, examination quality is considered excellent, whereas pre-/postexamination quality is an area for focused improvement. In our organization, 1 pre-/postexamination quality metric, namely, lost specimens, as tracked continuously for 27 years, has demonstrated steady improvement. During this period, many of our processes transitioned to highly automated effectors. Concurrently, we implemented behavioral controls and reengineered error-prone processes. We believe that this bilateral approach has conclusively lowered our lost specimen rates.

METHODS

Using data spanning 27 years, we plotted the correlation between lost specimens and the implementation dates for 8 major phases of automation, as well as 19 process improvements and engineering controls.

RESULTS

The lost specimen rate decreased nearly 100-fold. In Six Sigma terms, the 12 month moving average for lost specimens currently hovers at approximately 5.94 sigma, with 11 months at or better than 6 sigma. Although the combination of implementation of process improvements, engineering controls, and automation contributed to the reduction, automation was the most significant contributor.

CONCLUSIONS

The custom automation in use by our laboratory has led to improved pre-/postexamination quality. Although this automation may not be possible for all laboratories, our description of 19 behavior and engineering controls may be useful to others seeking to design high quality pre-/postexamination processes.

The key incident monitoring and management system - history and role in quality improvement

BACKGROUND

The determination of reliable, practical Quality Indicators (QIs) from presentation of the patient with a pathology request form through to the clinician receiving the report (the Total Testing Process or TTP) is a key step in identifying areas where improvement is necessary in laboratories.

METHODS

The Australasian QIs programme Key Incident Monitoring and Management System (KIMMS) began in 2008. It records incidents (process defects) and episodes (occasions at which incidents may occur) to calculate incident rates. KIMMS also uses the Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) to assign quantified risk to each incident type. The system defines risk as incident frequency multiplied by both a harm rating (on a 1-10 scale) and detection difficulty score (also a 1-10 scale).

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2016, laboratories participating rose from 22 to 69. Episodes rose from 13.2 to 43.4 million; incidents rose from 114,082 to 756,432. We attribute the rise in incident rate from 0.86% to 1.75% to increased monitoring. Haemolysis shows the highest incidence (22.6% of total incidents) and the highest risk (26.68% of total risk). "Sample is suspected to be from the wrong patient" has the second lowest frequency, but receives the highest harm rating (10/10) and detection difficulty score (10/10), so it is calculated to be the 8th highest risk (2.92%). Similarly, retracted (incorrect) reports QI has the 10th highest frequency (3.9%) but the harm/difficulty calculation confers the second highest risk (11.17%).

CONCLUSIONS

TTP incident rates are generally low (less than 2% of observed episodes), however, incident risks, their frequencies multiplied by both ratings of harm and discovery difficulty scores, concentrate improvement attention and resources on the monitored incident types most important to manage.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

For 50 years, structure, process, and outcomes measures have assessed health care quality. For clinical laboratories, structural quality has generally been assessed by inspection. For assessing process, quality indicators (QIs), statistical monitors of steps in the clinical laboratory total testing, have proliferated across the globe. Connections between structural and process laboratory measures and patient outcomes, however, have rarely been demonstrated.

METHODS

To inform further development of clinical laboratory quality systems, we conducted a selective but worldwide review of publications on clinical laboratory quality assessment.

RESULTS

Some QIs, like seven generic College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks monitors, have demonstrated significant process improvement; other measures have uncovered critical opportunities to improve test selection and result management. The College of Pathologists of Australasia Key Indicator Monitoring and Management System has deployed risk calculations, introduced from failure mode effects analysis, as surrogate measures for outcomes. Showing economic value from clinical laboratory testing quality is a challenge.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical laboratories should converge on fewer (7-14) rather than more (21-35) process monitors; monitors should cover all steps of the testing process under laboratory control and include especially high-risk specimen-quality QIs. Clinical laboratory stewardship, the combination of education interventions among clinician test orderers and report consumers with revision of test order formats and result reporting schemes, improves test ordering, but improving result reception is more difficult. Risk calculation reorders the importance of quality monitors by balancing three probabilities: defect frequency, weight of potential harm, and detection difficulty. The triple approach of (1) a more focused suite of generic consensus quality indicators, (2) more active clinical laboratory testing stewardship, and (3) integration of formal risk assessment, rather than competing with economic value, enhances it.