Jones, Bruce A.

Abstract Context. —Monitoring customer satisfaction is a valuable component of a laboratory quality improvement program. Objective. —To survey the level of physician satisfaction with hospital clinical laboratory services. Design. —Participating institutions provided demographic and practice information and survey results of physician satisfaction with defined aspects of clinical laboratory services, rated on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Results. —One hundred thirty-eight institutions participated in this study and submitted a total of 4329 physician surveys. The overall satisfaction score for all institutions ranged from 2.9 to 5.0. The median overall score for all participants was 4.1 (10th percentile, 3.6; 90th percentile, 4.5). Physicians were most satisfied with the quality/reliability of results and staff courtesy, with median values of excellent or good ratings of 89.9%. Of the 5 service categories that received the lowest percentage values of excellent/good ratings (combined scores of 4 and 5), 4 were related to turnaround time for inpatient stat, outpatient stat, routine, and esoteric tests. Surveys from half of the participating laboratories reported that 96% to 100% of physicians would recommend the laboratory to other physicians. The category most frequently selected as the most important category of laboratory services was quality/reliability of results (31.7%). Conclusions. —There continues to be a high level of physician satisfaction and loyalty with clinical laboratory services. Test turnaround times are persistent categories of dissatisfaction and present opportunities for improvement.

Abstract Context. —Rapid diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with chest pain may determine the types, and predict the outcomes of, the therapy those patients receive. The amount of time consumed in establishing diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction may depend in part on that consumed in the generation of the blood test results measuring myocardial injury. Objective. —To determine the normative rates of turnaround time (TAT) for biochemical markers of myocardial injury and to examine hospital and laboratory practices associated with faster TATs. Design. —Laboratory personnel in institutions enrolled in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Program measured the order-to-report TATs for serum creatine kinase–MB and/or serum troponin (I or T) for patients presenting to their hospital EDs with symptoms of acute myocardial infarction. Laboratory personnel also completed detailed questionnaires characterizing their laboratories' and hospitals' practices related to testing for biochemical markers of myocardial injury. ED physicians completed questionnaires indicating their satisfaction with testing for biochemical markers of myocardial injury in their hospitals. Setting. —A total of 159 hospitals, predominantly located in the United States, participating in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Program. Results. —Most (82%) laboratory participants indicated that they believed a reasonable order-to-report TATs for biochemical markers of myocardial injury to be 60 minutes or less. Most (75%) of the 1352 ED physicians who completed satisfaction questionnaires believed that the results of tests measuring myocardial injury should be reported back to them in 45 minutes or less, measured from the time that they ordered those tests. Participants submitted TAT data for 7020 troponin and 4368 creatine kinase–MB determinations. On average, they reported 90% of myocardial injury marker results in slightly more than 90 minutes measured from the time that those tests were ordered. Among the fastest performing 25% of participants (75th percentile and above), median order-to-report troponin and creatine kinase–MB TATs were equal to 50 and 48.3 minutes or less, respectively. Shorter troponin TATs were associated with performing cardiac marker studies in EDs or other peripheral laboratories compared to (1) performing tests in central hospital laboratories, and (2) having cardiac marker specimens obtained by laboratory rather than by nonlaboratory personnel. Conclusion. —The TAT expectations of the ED physicians using the results of laboratory tests measuring myocardial injury exceed those of the laboratory personnel providing the results of those tests. The actual TATs of myocardial injury testing meet the expectations of neither the providers of those tests nor the users of those test results. Improving TAT performance will require that the providers and users of laboratory services work together to develop standards that meet the needs of the medical staff and that are reasonably achievable by laboratory personnel.

Context.— Gynecologic cytopathology is a heavily regulated field, with Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 mandating the collection of many quality metrics. There is a lack of consensus regarding methods to collect, monitor, and benchmark these data and how these data should be used in a quality assurance program. Furthermore, the introduction of human papilloma virus testing and proficiency testing has provided more data to monitor. Objective.— To determine good laboratory practices in quality assurance of gynecologic cytopathology. Data Sources.— Data were collected through a written survey consisting of 98 questions submitted to 1245 Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–licensed or Department of Defense laboratories. There were 541 usable responses. Additional input was sought through a Web posting of results and questions on the College of American Pathologists Web site. Four senior authors who authored the survey and 28 cytopathologists and cytotechnologists were assigned to 5 working groups to analyze data and present statements on good laboratory practices in gynecologic cytopathology at the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytopathology Quality Consensus Conference. Ninety-eight attendees at the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytopathology Quality Consensus Conference discussed and voted on good laboratory practice statements to obtain consensus. Conclusions.— This paper describes the rationale, background, process, and strengths and limitations of a series of papers that summarize good laboratory practice statements in quality assurance in gynecologic cytopathology.