Abstract
Background
As effective quality management tools, quality indicators (QIs) are widely used in laboratory medicine. This study aimed to analyze the results of QIs, identify errors and provide quality specifications (QSs) based on the state-of-the-art.
Methods
Clinical laboratories all over China participated in the QIs survey organized by the National Health Commission of People’ Republic of China from 2015 to 2017. Most of these QIs were selected from a common model of QIs (MQI) established by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). All participants were asked to submit general information and original QIs data through a medical quality control data collection system. The results of QIs were reported in percentages and sigma, except turnaround time (TAT) which was measured in minutes. The 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles were, respectively, calculated as three levels of QSs, which were defined starting from the model proposed during the 1st Strategic Conference of the EFLM on “Defining analytical performance 15 years after the Stockholm Conference on Quality Specification in Laboratory Medicine”.
Results
A total of 76 clinical laboratories from 25 provinces in China continuously participated in this survey and submitted complete data for all QIs from 2015 to 2017. In general, the performance of all reported QIs have improved or at least kept stable over time. Defect percentages of blood culture contamination were the largest in the pre-analytical phase. Intra-laboratory TAT was always larger than pre-examination TAT. Percentage of tests covered by inter-laboratory comparison was relatively low than others in the intra-analytical phase. The performances of critical values notification and timely critical values notification were the best with 6.0σ. The median sigma level of incorrect laboratory reports varied from 5.5σ to 5.7σ.
Conclusions
QSs of QIs provide useful guidance for laboratories to improve testing quality. Laboratories should take continuous quality improvement measures in all phases of total testing process to ensure safe and effective tests.
Acknowledgments
We appreciate those participant laboratories and institutions that attended the national QIs survey. We also thank the contribution of Provincial Health Commissions made in data collection.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: The organization of national survey on 15 QIs was supported by the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, and the data management and statistics analysis was supported by the National Center for Clinical Laboratories. There was no funding source involved in this study.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Plebani M, Laposata M, Lundberg GD. The brain-to-brain loop concept for laboratory testing 40 years after its introduction. Am J Clin Pathol 2011;136:829–33.10.1309/AJCPR28HWHSSDNONSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Plebani M. The detection and prevention of errors in laboratory medicine. Ann Clin Biochem 2010;47:101–10.10.1258/acb.2009.009222Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Sciacovelli L, Aita A, Padoan A, Pelloso M, Antonelli G, Piva E, et al. Performance criteria and quality indicators for the post-analytical phase. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1169–76.10.1515/cclm-2015-0897Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. ISO 15189:2012. Medical laboratories-requirements for quality and competence. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
5. Zarbo RJ, Jones BA, Friedberg RC, Valenstein PN, Renner SW, Schifman RB, et al. Q-tracks: a College of American Pathologists program of continuous laboratory monitoring and longitudinal tracking. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002;126:1036–44.10.5858/2002-126-1036-QTSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Sciacovelli L, Plebani M. The IFCC Working Group on laboratory errors and patient safety. Clin Chim Acta 2009;404:79–85.10.1016/j.cca.2009.03.025Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Sciacovelli L, O’Kane M, Skaik YA, Caciagli P, Pellegrini C, Da Rin G, et al. Quality Indicators in Laboratory Medicine: from theory to practice. Preliminary data from the IFCC Working Group Project “Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety”. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:835–44.Search in Google Scholar
8. International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Quality Indicators in Laboratory Medicine. http://217.148.121.44/MqiWeb/Page_QualityIndicators.jsf. Accessed: 15 Dec 2017.Search in Google Scholar
9. National Health and Family Planning Commission. Notification about the publishing of quality control indicators. http://www.nhfpc.gov.cn/zhuz/index.shtml. Accessed: 10 Apr 2015.Search in Google Scholar
10. Plebani M, Astion ML, Barth JH, Chen W, de Oliveira Galoro CA, Escuer MI, et al. Harmonization of quality indicators in laboratory medicine. A preliminary consensus. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:951–8.10.1515/cclm-2014-0142Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Kulkarni S, Ramesh R, Srinivasan AR, Silvia CR. Evaluation of preanalytical quality indicators by Six Sigma and Pareto’s Principle. Indian J Clin Biochem 2018;33:102–7.10.1007/s12291-017-0654-5Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
12. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Aita A, Pelloso M, Chiozza ML. Performance criteria and quality indicators for the pre-analytical phase. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:943–8.10.1515/cclm-2014-1124Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Panteghini M, Sandberg S. Defining analytical performance specifications 15 years after the Stockholm conference. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:829–32.10.1515/cclm-2015-0303Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Sciacovelli L, Panteghini M, Lippi G, Sumarac Z, Cadamuro J, Galoro CA, et al. Defining a roadmap for harmonizing quality indicators in Laboratory Medicine: a consensus statement on behalf of the IFCC Working Group “Laboratory Error and Patient Safety” and EFLM Task and Finish Group “Performance specifications for the extra-analytical phases”. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:1478–88.10.1515/cclm-2017-0412Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Westgard JO. Six sigma quality, design and control. Madison, WI: Westgard QC, 2006.Search in Google Scholar
16. Westgard JO. The Six Sigma calculators. https://www.westgard.com/six-sigma-calculators.htm. Accessed: 30 Jan 2018.Search in Google Scholar
17. Sciacovelli L, Lippi G, Sumarac Z, West J, Garcia Del Pino Castro I, Furtado Vieira K, et al. Quality Indicators in Laboratory Medicine: the status of the progress of IFCC Working Group “Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety” project. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:348–57.10.1515/cclm-2016-0929Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Barth JH. Clinical quality indicators in laboratory medicine. Ann Clin Biochem 2012;49:9–16.10.1258/acb.2011.011126Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Fei Y, Kang F, Wang W, Zhao H, He F, Zhong K, et al. Preliminary probe of quality indicators and quality specification in total testing process in 5753 laboratories in China. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1337–45.10.1515/cclm-2015-0958Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Aita A. Quality indicators for the total testing process. Clin Lab Med 2017;37:187–205.10.1016/j.cll.2016.09.015Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. CLSI. CLSI document M47-A. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2007. Principles and procedures for blood cultures; Approved guideline.Search in Google Scholar
22. Self WH, Mickanin J, Grijalva CG, Grant FH, Henderson MC, Corley G, et al. Reducing blood culture contamination in community hospital emergency departments: a multicenter evaluation of a quality improvement intervention. Acad Emerg Med 2014;21:274–82.10.1111/acem.12337Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
23. Sandberg S, Fraser CG, Horvath AR, Jansen R, Jones G, Oosterhuis W, et al. Defining analytical performance specifications: consensus statement from the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:833–5.10.1515/cclm-2015-0067Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Lippi G, Sciacovelli L, Simundic AM, Plebani M. Innovative software for recording preanalytical errors in accord with the IFCC quality indicators. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017; 55:e51–3.10.1515/cclm-2016-1138Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
