English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Proficiency of laboratory services is the mainstay in clinical medicine in providing error free diagnostic results. The efficiency of the laboratory needs to be evaluated as per standard international criterion. The quality indicators of the different phases of total testing process are considered the fundamental measurable tool for evaluation of laboratory performance. In order to optimize the laboratory's proficiency and accreditate it as per international standard in our newly established lab, the study was conducted to evaluate the frequency of errors incurred by laboratory and nonlaboratory professionals during the whole testing process. Retrospective analysis was done for data received from April 2016 to Dec 2016 in our lab. Total number of samples received was 61,674, out of which 43200 samples could be analyzed for quality indicators. Total numbers of tests processed in these samples were 172,800. In the study samples, 26.5% errors were due to pre-analytical factors whereas 9.4% of errors were contributed by analytical phase and 18% by post-analytical phase. Inappropriateness of test requisition was observed to be the major attributing determinant for pre-analytical errors. Instrumentation efficiency in form of frequent breakdown (~7%), greatly affected the proficiency of analytical phase in our lab. 12% of post-analytical errors were ascribed by excessive turn-around-time. However, timeliness of critical value call out and reporting for STAT samples revealed high proficiency up to 97%. High error rates were observed in pre-pre- and pre-analytical phases that also accorded for high error frequency in post analytical phase. This emphasizes urgent need to formulate guidelines for processing all steps of total testing process and initiate strategic measures for reducing risk of errors and increasing patient safety.

Congruity in Quality Indicators and Laboratory Performance