Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38952740›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2024

Benchmarking medical laboratory performance on a global scale.

Wolfgang Huf, Mike Mohns, Eni Almeta, Rebecca Lister, Christoph Buchta, Svitlana Demyanets, Wolfgang Buchberger, Brigitte Ettl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. 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

8 authors.

Wolfgang HufKarl Landsteiner Institute for Clinical Risk Management, Vienna, Austria.
Mike MohnsAbbott GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Eni AlmetaAbbott GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Rebecca ListerAbbott GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Christoph BuchtaAustrian Association for Quality Assurance and Standardization of Medical and Diagnostic Tests (ÖQUASTA), Vienna, Austria.
Svitlana DemyanetsDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Clinic Hietzing, Vienna, Austria.
Wolfgang BuchbergerResearch Unit for Quality and Efficiency in Medicine, Institute for Public Health, Medical Decision Making and HTA, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Brigitte EttlKarl Landsteiner Institute for Clinical Risk Management, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and aims: Laboratory performance as a relative concept needs repetitive benchmarking for continuous improvement of laboratory procedures and medical processes. Benchmarking as such establishes reference levels as a basis for improvements efforts for healthcare institutions along the diagnosis cycle, with the patient at its center. But while this concept seems to be generally acknowledged in laboratory medicine, a lack of practical implementation hinders progress at a global level. The aim of this study was to examine the utility of a specific combination of indicators and survey-based data collection approach, and to establish a global benchmarking dataset of laboratory performance for decision makers in healthcare institutions. Methods: The survey consisted of 44 items relating to laboratory operations in general and three subscales identified in previous studies. A global sample of laboratories was approached by trained professionals. Results were analyzed with standard descriptive statistics and exploratory factor analysis. Dimensional reduction of specific items was performed using confirmatory factor analysis, resulting in individual laboratory scores for the three subscales of "Operational performance," "Integrated clinical care performance," and "Financial sustainability" for the high-level concept of laboratory performance. Results and conclusions: In total, 920 laboratories from 55 countries across the globe participated in the survey, of which 401 were government hospital laboratories, 296 private hospital laboratories, and 223 commercial laboratories. Relevant results include the need for digitalization and automation along the diagnosis cycle. Formal quality management systems (ISO 9001, ISO 15189 etc.) need to be adapted more broadly to increase patient safety. Monitoring of key performance indicators (KPIs) relating to healthcare performance was generally low (in the range of 10-30% of laboratories overall), and as a particularly salient result, only 19% of laboratories monitored KPIs relating to speeding up diagnosis and treatment. Altogether, this benchmark elucidates current practice and has the potential to guide improvement efforts and standardization in quality & safety for patients and employees alike as well as sustainability of healthcare systems around the globe.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingGlobal HealthHumansLaboratories, ClinicalSurveys and Questionnairesautomationbenchmarksclinical laboratorydiagnostic laboratorydiagnostic qualitydigitalizationpatient safetyquestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID38952740
PMCPMC11215183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.