ArticleEJIFCC2026
The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Laboratory Accreditation Program (LAP): Accreditation Process and its Impact on Laboratory Practice and Patient Safety.
Article in EJIFCC, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the laboratory professional perceptions on how the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Laboratory Accreditation Program (LAP) is associated with the laboratory processes and patient safety across multiple countries in the Middle East and South Asia. The objective was to determine how CAP LAP influences laboratory quality and safety culture, and participants reported that error-related events appeared to decrease following the CAP LAP. A quantitative, cross-sectional design was used, employing a structured electronic questionnaire distributed to CAP-accredited laboratories in Saudi Arabia, other Gulf countries, Egypt, and Pakistan. A total of 300 valid responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and marginal homogeneity testing to compare the respondents' perceived condition pre- and post-accreditation performance in areas such as staff competency, quality management, turnaround time, and safety practices. Respondents assessed conditions before and after accreditation in pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical areas, including quality management systems, staff competence, turnaround time, equipment upkeep, communication, and safety culture. We examined paired ordinal responses using marginal homogeneity tests. The CAP LAP was therefore viewed as highly valuable for improving both laboratory performance and patient safety. This study provides empirical evidence from multi-country CAP LAP accredited laboratories, filling a regional gap in accreditation research. It demonstrates that the CAP LAP functions as a strong governance mechanism enhancing quality and safety within diverse healthcare systems. It is advisable to conduct future longitudinal and comparative studies among CAP, ISO 15189:2022, and national accreditation systems to evaluate the durability of enhancements and their impact on laboratory personnel behavior. These results indicate that laboratory professionals view CAP LAP as linked to significant enhancements in laboratory operations and safety protocols. However, the results are based on people's own reports of their perceptions and don't show cause-and-effect relationships or measure objective safety outcomes. Future research incorporating objective performance metrics and longitudinal methodologies is essential to assess the causal influence of accreditation on patientsafety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42699477PMC13543442What 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.