ArticleBMC health services research2025
Exploring the impact of national laboratory accreditation on quality and practices: a qualitative study from a government medical college in western India.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical laboratories play a crucial role in diagnostics and therapeutic decisions, with accreditation by bodies like the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) ensuring technical competence. This study examines the impact of NABL accreditation on laboratory practices, highlighting benefits, challenges, and areas for improvement.
methodsThis qualitative study used six focus group discussions (FGDs) and five in-depth interviews (IDIs) to explore experiences of laboratory professionals at NABL-accredited laboratories in Government Medical College, Bhavnagar, Gujarat. Participants were purposively selected to ensure diverse perspectives. Thematic analysis, employing an inductive approach, was validated through member checking.
resultsThe 29 participants reported NABL accreditation positively influenced quality control, standard adherence, and accuracy of laboratory reports. Maintenance of quality registers, equipment calibration, adherence to standard operating procedures (SOPs), and participation in External Quality Assessment Schemes (EQAS) promoted continuous improvement. However, significant challenges included excessive documentation, subjective assessments, workflow disruptions, and financial constraints. Participants recognized accreditation's educational value, skill enhancement opportunities, and improved market credibility. Recommended improvements included digital documentation systems, reduced administrative burdens, clearer assessment criteria, and increased clinician involvement.
conclusionsNABL accreditation significantly elevates laboratory standards, improving patient care and clinical decision-making. However, challenges such as excessive paperwork, subjective assessments, financial constraints, and data integrity issues must be addressed. Digital documentation systems, unannounced inspections, clearer assessor guidelines, and greater clinician engagement could mitigate these barriers. Accreditation also enhances educational outcomes and market perception. Policymakers and accreditation bodies should incorporate these findings to refine accreditation processes and sustainably improve laboratory quality and healthcare outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.