Philippines Diagnostic Pathology Laboratory Benchmarking
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21141/PJP.2019.11Keywords:
benchmarking, quality, cost of service, customer satisfaction, turnaround timeAbstract
Introduction To ensure continuous quality improvement, laboratories need to obtain data about best practice from peers. Data about analytical EQA is available but far less is available about other important aspects of laboratory performance. There is a Roche Diagnostics Survey of laboratories which provides benchmarking in key areas of laboratory performance.
Methodology The Roche Diagnostics Survey included 1058 laboratories from 14 countries in the Asia Pacific Region with both developing and developed nations. The data were collected in 2017 but the survey has been collecting data each second year since 2011. Data was collected in the areas of quality, speed and cost.
Results The results for the Philippines was compared with other countries in the Asia Pacific Region. Broadly it was found that 42% of all laboratories in the Region were accredited to ISO 15189 or ISO 9001 and that 50% of laboratories were in an External Quality Assurance (EQA) program. Compared to other countries in the survey, the Philippines laboratories had fewer sites with ISO 15189 and with Lean Six Sigma improvement deployment. There are six laboratories in the Philippines that are accredited to ISO 15189. There was a greater emphasis on customer satisfaction related Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) such as turnaround time monitoring, cost reduction and employee productivity.
Conclusion Benchmarking can highlight the differences in the apparent quality of laboratory services compared to their peers and may lead to improvement. The benchmarking comparison has identified opportunities for Philippine laboratories to improve including obtaining ISO 15189 accreditation, implementing laboratory information systems and concentrating on Lean practices to improve productivity. The Roche scheme provides an ongoing (growing) large sample of benchmarks that can be used by participants to improve their performance and the performance of individual countries.
Downloads
References
2. Q-Probes College of American Pathologists. Quality management programs. https://www.cap.org/laboratory-improvement/quality-management-programs. Accessed July 5, 2019.
3. Mainz J. Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15(6):523-30. PMID: 14660535. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzg08.
4. Badrick T, Gay S, Mackay M, Sikaris K. The key incident monitoring and management system – history and role in quality improvement. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018;56(2):264-72. PMID: 28771429. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2017-0219.
5. Nakhleh RE, Souers RJ, Bashleben CP, et al. Fifteen years’ experience of a College of American Pathologists program for continuous quality improvement. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(9):1150-5. PMID: 25171697. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2014-0148-OA.
6. Meier FA, Souers RJ, Howanitz PJ et al. Seven Q-Tracks monitors of laboratory quality drive general performance improvement: experience from the College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks program 1999-2011. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139(6):762-75. PMID: 26030245. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2014-0090-CP.
7. Shcolnik W, de Oliveira CA, de São José AS, de Oliveira Galoro CA, Plebani M, Burnett D. Brazilian laboratory indicators program. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2012;50(11):1923–34. PMID: 23096110. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2012-0357.
8. Kirchner MJ, Funes VA, Adzet CB, et al. Quality indicators and specifications for key processes in clinical laboratories: a preliminary experience. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007; 45(5):672–7. PMID: 17484633. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2007.122.
9. Barth JH. Clinical quality indicators in laboratory medicine. Ann Clin Biochem 2012; 49(Pt 1): 9–16. PMID: 22042979. https://doi.org/10.1258/acb.2011.011126.
10. Barth JH. Selecting clinical quality indicators for laboratory medicine. Ann Clin Biochem 2012;49(Pt 3):257–61. PMID: 22422153. https://doi.org/10.1258/acb.2011.011159.
11. Simundic AM, Topić E. Quality indicators. Biochem Med 2008;18(3): 311–19. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2008.027.
12. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Lippi G. Quality indicators for laboratory diagnostics: consensus is needed. Ann Clin Biochem 2011;48(Pt 5):479. PMID: 21733928. https://doi.org/10.1258/acb.2011.011088.
13. International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Laboratory errors and patient safety (WG-LEPS). http://www.ifcc.org/ifcc-education-division/working-groups-special-projects/laboratory-errors-and-patient-safety-wg-leps/. Accessed July 5, 2019.
14. Badrick TC, Gutscher A, Sakamoto N, Loong DCM. Diagnostic laboratories in Asia Pacific region: investigation on quality characteristics and time of reporting. Clin Biochem. 2017;50(10-11):625-31. PMID: 28336392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.03.017.
15. Zima T. Accreditation of medical laboratories - system, process, benefits for labs. J Med Biochem. 2017;36(3):231–7. PMID: 30568539. PMCID: PMC6287213. https://doi.org/10.1515/jomb-2017-0025.
16. Tzankov A, Tornillo L. Hands-on experience: accreditation of pathology Laboratories according to ISO 15189. Pathobiology. 2017;84(3):121-9. PMID: 27923229. https://doi.org/ 10.1159/000449254.
17. Republic of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 605 [Gloria M. Arroyo]: Institutionalizing the Structure, Mechanisms, and Standards to Implement the Government Quality Management Program. March 2007.
18. Republic of the Philippines, Department of Health Administrative Order 2012-0021 [Enrique T. Ona]: National Framework of the National Laboratory Health Network. October 2012.
19. Republic of the Philippines, Department of Health Administrative Order 2007- 0027 [Francisco T. Duque III]: Revised Rules and Regulations Governing the Licensure and Regulation of Clinical Laboratories in the Philippines. February 2007.
20. Hamilton L. Lean, lean six sigma and the clinical Lab. MLO 25 January 2018. https://www.mlo-online.com/home/article/13009430/lean-lean-six-sigma-and-the-clinical-laboratory. Accessed 13 July 2019.
21. Inal TC, Goruroglu Ozturk O, Kibar, F, et al. Lean six sigma methodologies improve clinical laboratory efficiency and reduce turnaround times. J Clin Lab Anal. 2018;32(1). PMID: 28205271. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22180.
22. Galloway M, Nadin L. Benchmarking and the laboratory. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54(8):590-7. PMID: 11477112. PMCID: PMC1731489. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.54.8.590.
23. Neil A, Pfeffer S, Burnett L; BiPAC. Benchmarking in pathology: development of a benchmarking complexity unit and associated key performance indicators. Pathology. 2013;45(1):66-70. PMID: 23222245. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAT.0b013e32835b77c4.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The Philippine Journal of Pathology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Based on works made open access at http://philippinejournalofpathology.org
@philippinepathologyjournal