Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34709471›Full record

ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2022

Benchmarking diagnostic laboratory performance: Survey results for Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

Wolfgang Huf, Mike Mohns, Tetiana Garmatiuk, Rebecca Lister, Christoph Buchta, Brigitte Ettl, Ursula Köller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Wolfgang HufKarl Landsteiner Institute for Clinical Risk Management, Vienna, Austria. wolfgang.huf@gesundheitsverbund.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1479-2972
Mike MohnsAbbott GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Tetiana GarmatiukDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Hietzing Hospital, Vienna Healthcare Group, Vienna, Austria.
Rebecca ListerAbbott GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Christoph BuchtaAustrian Association for Quality Assurance and Standardization of Medical and Diagnostic Tests (ÖQUASTA), Vienna, Austria.
Brigitte EttlKarl Landsteiner Institute for Clinical Risk Management, Vienna, Austria.
Ursula KöllerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Hietzing Hospital, Vienna Healthcare Group, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe 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.

methodsThe 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

conclusionAltogether, 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.

Indexed as

COVID-19LaboratoriesAustriaBenchmarkingGermanyHumansSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesSwitzerlandBenchmarksDiagnostic qualityMedical laboratoryPatient safetyQuestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID34709471
PMCPMC8552210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.