Primer Part 1 - Preparing a laboratory quality improvement project.

Quality in laboratory medicine encompasses multiple components related to total quality management, including quality control (QC), quality assurance (QA), quality indicators, and quality improvement (QI). Together, they contribute to minimizing errors (pre-analytical, analytical, or post-analytical) in clinical service delivery and improving process appropriateness and efficiency. In contrast to static quality benchmarks (QC, QA, quality indicators), the QI paradigm is a continuous approach to systemic process improvement for optimizing patient safety, timeliness, effectiveness, and efficiency. Healthcare institutions have placed emphasis on applying the QI framework to identify and improve healthcare delivery. Despite QI's increasing importance, there is a lack of guidance on preparing, executing, and sustaining QI initiatives in the field of laboratory medicine. This has presented a significant barrier for clinical laboratorians to participate in and lead QI initiatives. This three-part primer series will bridge this knowledge gap by providing a guide for clinical laboratories to implement a QI project that issuccessful and sustainable. In the first article, we introduce the steps needed to prepare a QI project with focus on relevant methodology and tools related to problem identification, stakeholder engagement, root cause analysis (e.g., fishbone diagrams, Pareto charts and process mapping), and SMART aim establishment. Throughout, we describe a clinical vignette of a real QI project completed at our institution focused on serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) utilization. This primer series is the first of its kind in laboratory medicine and will serve as a useful resource for future engagement of clinical laboratory leaders in QI initiatives.

Glucose point-of-care meter operators competency: An assessment checklist.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Glucose point-of-care testing meters are essential technology ubiquitous in hospitals. They are operated by non-specialized staff who are assessed through an auto-recertification process that is dependent on operators successfully producing expected outcomes. Alternatively, we suggest that operator practices be directly observed using a competency assessment checklist. METHOD: We designed a checklist based on literature and manufacturers' instructions and tested it by observing 30 operators at two sites (three hospitals) over two months in 2018. RESULTS: Despite all operators being auto-recertified, the checklist revealed that only 20% met the 80% threshold of compliance to standards. Moreover, the site with a POCT coordinator had a compliance rate of 82% versus 67% for the site that did not. DISCUSSION: The checklist is more reliable than auto-recertification in assessing operators' competence. It also highlights areas for process improvement and provides an opportunity to give personalized feedback to operators.