Twenty-five years of accomplishments of the College of American Pathologists Q-probes program for clinical pathology

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.

Technical Staffing Ratios: A Summary of 3 College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Studies

CONTEXT.—

Laboratory managers and medical directors are charged with staffing their clinical laboratories as efficiently as possible.

OBJECTIVE.—

To report and analyze the results of 3 College of American Pathologists Q-Probes studies that surveyed the normative rates of laboratory technical staffing ratios.

DESIGN.—

Participants in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes program submitted data on the levels of staffing and test volumes performed in their laboratories in 2014, 2016, and 2019. From these data, we calculated departmental productivity ratios, defined as testing volume per full-time equivalent, and degrees of managerial oversight, defined as the ratio of nonmanagement to management full-time equivalents. Participants completed general questionnaires surveying their hospital and laboratory demographics and practices, the data from which we determined demographic and practice characteristics that were significantly associated with technical staffing ratios.

RESULTS.—

Sixty-seven, 82, and 79 institutions submitted data for the years 2019, 2016, and 2014, respectively. Technical staffing ratios varied widely among the various laboratory departments within each institution and among different institutions participating in this study. With the exception of cytology departments, productivity and managerial oversight ratios did not significantly change between these 3 studies. In the 2019 study, greater testing volumes were associated with higher productivity ratios. Significant associations between managerial oversight ratios and practice characteristics were not consistent across the 3 studies.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Technical staffing ratios varied widely among the various laboratory departments within each institution and among different institutions participating in this study.

Workflow Mapping-A Q-Probes Study of Preanalytic Testing Processes: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 35 Clinical Laboratories

CONTEXT.—

Workflow mapping is a tool used to characterize operational processes throughout most industries and to identify non-value-added activities.

OBJECTIVE.—

To develop a set of workflow mapping tools to compare the sequence and timing of activities, including waiting steps, used by clinical laboratories to process specimens during the preanalytic testing phase.

DESIGN.—

Laboratories enrolled in this College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study created workflow maps detailing the steps they used to process specimens from the time of sample arrival in the laboratory to the time of sample delivery to chemistry analyzers. Enrollees recorded the sequence and types of steps involved in specimen processing and the time needed to complete each step.

RESULTS.—

Institution average total specimen processing times (SPTs) and the number of steps required to prepare samples varied widely among institutions. Waiting steps, that is, steps requiring specimens to wait before advancing to the next process step, and specimen centrifugation consumed the greatest amount of processing times for both routine and STAT testing. Routine and STAT testing SPTs were shorter at institutions that used rapid centrifuges to prepare samples. Specimen processes requiring more sample waiting steps and computer entry steps had longer aggregate total process times than those with fewer such steps.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Aggregate specimen processing times may be shortened by reducing the number of steps involving sample waiting and computer entry activities. Rapid centrifugation is likely to reduce overall average institutional SPTs.

A pilot study for establishing quality indicators in molecular diagnostics according to the IFCC WG-LEPS initiative: preliminary findings in China

Background

Quality indicators (QIs) are crucial tools in measuring the quality of laboratory services. Based on the general QIs of the Working Group “Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety (WG-LEPS)” of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC), specific QIs have been established in order to monitor and improve the quality of molecular diagnostics, and to assess the detection level of associated disease.

Methods

A survey was conducted on 46 independent commercial laboratories in China, investigated using questionnaires and on-site inspections. Specific QIs established were mainly based on the specific laboratory work-flow for molecular diagnoses. The specific QI results from three volunteer laboratories were collected and used to validate their effectiveness.

Results

Of the 46 laboratories participating in the study, 44 (95.7%), conducted molecular diagnostics. Of 13 specific established QIs, six were priority level 1, and seven, priority level 3. At pre-evaluation of data from the three volunteering laboratories, it was found that the newly classified specific QIs had outstanding advantages in error identification and risk reduction.

Conclusions

Novel specific QIs, a promising tool for monitoring and improving upon the total testing process in molecular diagnostics, can effectively contribute to ensuring 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.

Improving American Healthcare Through "Clinical Lab 2.0": A Project Santa Fe Report

Project Santa Fe was established both to provide thought leadership and to help develop the evidence base for the valuation of clinical laboratory services in the next era of American healthcare. The participants in Project Santa Fe represent major regional health systems that can operationalize laboratory-driven innovations and test their valuation in diverse regional marketplaces in the United States. We provide recommendations from the inaugural March 2016 meeting of Project Santa Fe. Specifically, in the transition from volume-based to value-based health care, clinical laboratories are called upon to provide programmatic leadership in reducing total cost of care through optimization of time-to-diagnosis and time-to-effective therapeutics, optimization of care coordination, and programmatic support of wellness care, screening, and monitoring. This call to action is more than working with industry stakeholders on the basis of our expertise; it is providing leadership in creating the programs that accomplish these objectives. In so doing, clinical laboratories can be effectors in identifying patients at risk for escalation in care, closing gaps in care, and optimizing outcomes of health care innovation. We also hope that, through such activities, the evidence base will be created for the new value propositions of integrated laboratory networks. In the very simplest sense, this effort to create “Clinical Lab 2.0” will establish the impact of laboratory diagnostics on the full 100% spend in American healthcare, not just the 2.5% spend attributed to in vitro diagnostics. In so doing, our aim is to empower regional and local laboratories to thrive under new models of payment in the next era of American health care delivery.