Ruby, Stephen G.

Abstract Context. —There are multiple elements that can be measured to assess the quality of a surgical pathology laboratory. Overall customer satisfaction is an excellent “global” measure, because it highlights the unique insight of laboratory performance from the users' perspective. Objective. —To measure customer satisfaction with surgical pathology reports. Design. —This study was based on a subscription Q-Tracks study. Voluntary participants were asked to distribute and collect a minimum of 25 surveys per quarter from their clients. Four parameters were graded, which included overall satisfaction, report turnaround time (TAT), completeness, and style on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Each laboratory submitted quarterly data to the College of American Pathologists, where the data were tabulated and analyzed. Each laboratory could compare their performance in all 4 measures against the entire cohort or a selected subgroup of laboratories. Overall customer satisfaction with surgical pathology reports and 3 subcategories of report TAT, completeness, and style were the main outcome measures. Results. —This study ran during 2004 and 2005, with 41 and 33 participant laboratories, respectively. The median score for overall satisfaction, TAT, completeness, and style were 4.57, 4.31, 4.62, and 4.64 in 2004, and 4.64, 4.56, 4.65, and 4.68 in 2005, respectively. Most laboratories reported results for 4 quarters or fewer. There was no statistically significant change in overall satisfaction over time. Conclusions. —Overall satisfaction scores for surgical pathology reports as well as satisfaction with report TAT, completeness, and style were high. Report TAT received the lowest scores of all parameters.

Abstract Context.—Anatomic pathology discrepancy frequencies have not been rigorously studied. Objective.—To determine the frequency of anatomic pathology discrepancies and the causes of these discrepancies. Design.—Participants in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes program self-reported the number of anatomic pathology discrepancies in their laboratories by prospectively performing secondary review (post–sign-out) of 100 surgical pathology or cytology specimens. Reasons for the secondary review included conferences, external review, internal quality assurance policy, and physician request. Participants.—Seventy-four laboratories self-reported data. Main Outcome Measures.—Frequency of anatomic pathology discrepancy; type of discrepancy (ie, change in margin status, change in diagnosis, change in patient information, or typographic error); effect of discrepancy on patient outcome (ie, no harm, near miss, or harm); and clarity of report. Results.—The mean and median laboratory discrepancy frequencies were 6.7% and 5.1%, respectively. Forty-eight percent of all discrepancies were due to a change within the same category of interpretation (eg, 1 tumor type was changed to another tumor type). Twenty-one percent of all discrepancies were due to a change across categories of interpretation (eg, a benign diagnosis was changed to a malignant diagnosis). Although the majority of discrepancies had no effect on patient care, 5.3% had a moderate or marked effect on patient care. Conclusions.—This study establishes a mean multi-institutional discrepancy frequency (related to secondary review) of 6.7%.

Abstract Context.—Unnecessary tests, inefficient ordering practices, and collection of more blood than is required for testing contribute to iatrogenic anemia in hospitalized patients. Laboratories accredited by the College of American Pathologists are expected to review phlebotomy practices for specimen collection volumes periodically. Objective.—To report specimen collection, analytic, and discard volumes for routine laboratory tests and to identify practice variables associated with overcollection and blood wastage. Design.—Clinical laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes laboratory improvement program recorded collection container size, laboratory-defined requested volume, manufacturer-defined analytic volume, and average discard volume for routine complete blood cell counts and electrolyte panels ordered for patients in intensive care units. Participants provided information about their specimen collection, processing, and analytic practices in a questionnaire. Setting and Participants.—A total of 140 public and private institutions. Main Outcome Measures.—Overcollections for routine collections and for situations in which a reduced volume of specimen is collected, and average discard volume per tube. Results.—Laboratories collected a median of 2.76 mL (or 8.5 times) more than their instrument's analytic volume for routine complete blood cell counts and 1.75 mL (or 12 times) more than their instrument's analytic volume for routine electrolyte panels. For clinical situations in which reduced collection volumes were necessary, overcollection for the same analytes was 0.5 mL (3 times) and 0.44 mL (4.2 times), respectively. The median discard volume was 2.8 mL/tube for complete blood cell counts and 2.0 mL/tube for electrolyte panels. Specimen collection container size was directly associated with overcollections and discard volumes. Instrument analytic volume was not a determinant of blood wastage. Conclusions.—Most laboratories can decrease collection volumes without compromising the ability of the laboratory to report a reliable and timely result. Use of smaller collection tubes can help reduce blood wastage.

Abstract Objective. —To determine the frequency with which solitary blood culture samples were submitted to laboratories serving small hospitals and to ascertain whether certain hospital practices relating to the performance of blood cultures were associated with lower solitary blood culture rates (SBCRs). Design. —Participants in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes laboratory quality improvement program collected data prospectively on the numbers of solitary blood culture sets from adult patients submitted to their laboratories and answered questions about their institutions' practice characteristics relating to the collection of blood culture specimens. Setting and Participants. —Three hundred thirty-three public and private institutions with a median occupied bed size of 57. Participants were located in the United States (n = 329), Canada (n = 3), and Australia (n = 1). Main Outcome Measure. —The solitary blood culture rate was defined as the number of instances in which only 1 blood culture venipuncture was performed on an individual patient during a 24-hour period divided by the total number of blood culture venipunctures that were performed during the study period. Results. —Participants submitted data on 132 778 adult patient blood culture sets. The SBCRs were 3.4% or less in the top-performing 10% of participating institutions (90th percentile and above), 12.7% in the midrange of participating institutions (50th percentile), and 42.5% or more in the bottom-performing 10% of participating institutions (10th percentile and below). In half the participating institutions, the SBCRs for inpatients were 8.3% or less and for outpatients, 22% or less. Solitary blood culture rates were lower for institutions in which phlebotomists rather than nonphlebotomists routinely collected blood culture specimens, in which internal policies required drawing at least 2 blood culture sets, in which hospital personnel contacted clinicians when their laboratories received requests for solitary blood culture sets, and in which quality control programs monitored SBCRs routinely. Conclusions. —Hospitals can achieve SBCRs under 5%. Those hospitals with particularly high SBCRs may lower their rates by altering certain institutional practices.