Performance evaluation of a coagulation laboratory using Sigma metrics.

Purpose Two-thirds of medical decisions are based on laboratory test results. Therefore, laboratories should practice strict quality control (QC) measures. Traditional QC processes may not accurately reflect the magnitude of errors in clinical laboratories. Six Sigma is a statistical tool which provides opportunity to assess performance at the highest level of excellence. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate performance of the coagulation laboratory utilizing Sigma metrics as the highest level of quality. Design/methodology/approach Quality indicators of the coagulation laboratory from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2015, were evaluated. These QIs were categorized into pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical. Relative frequencies of errors were calculated and converted to Sigma scale to determine the extent of control over each process. The Sigma level of 4 was considered optimal performance. Findings During the study period, a total of 474,655 specimens were received and 890,535 analyses were performed. These include 831,760 (93.4 percent) routine and 58,775 (6.6 percent) special tests. Stat reporting was requested for 166,921 (18.7 percent). Of 7,535,146 total opportunities (sum of the total opportunities for all indicators), a total of 4,005 errors were detected. There were 2,350 (58.7 percent) pre-analytical, 11 (0.3 percent) analytical and 1,644 (41 percent) post-analytical errors. Average Sigma value obtained was 4.8 with 12 (80 percent) indicators achieving a Sigma value of 4. Three (20 percent) low-performance indicators were: unacceptable proficiency testing (3.8), failure to inform critical results (3.6) and delays in stat reporting (3.9). Practical implications This study shows that a small number of errors can decrease Sigma value to below acceptability limits. If clinical laboratories start using Sigma metrics for monitoring their performance, they can identify gaps in their performance more readily and hence can improve their performance and patient safety. Social implications This study provides an opportunity for the laboratorians to choose and set world-class goals while assessing their performance. Originality/value To the best of the authors' knowledge and belief, this study is the first of its kind that has utilized Sigma metrics as a QC tool for monitoring performance of a coagulation laboratory.

[1]  G. Lippi,et al.  Frequency and type of preanalytical errors in a laboratory medicine department in India , 2008, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[2]  Yu Kyung Kim,et al.  [Reducing patient waiting time for the outpatient phlebotomy service using six sigma]. , 2009, The Korean journal of laboratory medicine.

[3]  G. Lippi,et al.  Influence of residual platelet count on routine coagulation, factor VIII, and factor IX testing in postfreeze-thaw samples. , 2013, Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis.

[4]  S. Gyekye,et al.  Application of sigma metrics for the assessment of quality control in clinical chemistry laboratory in Ghana: A pilot study , 2015, Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association.

[5]  M. Salinas,et al.  An Evaluation of Hemoglobin A1c Test Ordering Patterns in a Primary Care Setting , 2012 .

[6]  A. Tefferi,et al.  How to interpret and pursue an abnormal prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and bleeding time in adults. , 2007, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[7]  B. Moiz,et al.  Analytical performance evaluation of a high‐volume hematology laboratory utilizing sigma metrics as standard of excellence , 2016, International journal of laboratory hematology.

[8]  G. Lippi,et al.  Quality Standards for Sample Collection in Coagulation Testing , 2012, Seminars in Thrombosis & Hemostasis.

[9]  L. Jafri,et al.  Error identification in a high-volume clinical chemistry laboratory: Five-year experience , 2015, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.

[10]  Mario Plebani,et al.  The IFCC Working Group on laboratory errors and patient safety. , 2009, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[11]  M Plebani,et al.  Mistakes in a stat laboratory: types and frequency. , 1997, Clinical chemistry.

[12]  S. Westgard,et al.  Assessing precision, bias and sigma-metrics of 53 measurands of the Alinity ci system. , 2017, Clinical biochemistry.

[13]  Allard E Dembe,et al.  The Applicability of Lean and Six Sigma Techniques to Clinical and Translational Research , 2009, Journal of Investigative Medicine.

[14]  Mario Plebani,et al.  Harmonization of quality indicators in laboratory medicine. A preliminary consensus , 2014, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[15]  A. Coşkun Six Sigma and calculated laboratory tests. , 2006, Clinical chemistry.

[16]  R. Forsman,et al.  Why is the laboratory an afterthought for managed care organizations? , 1996, Clinical chemistry.

[17]  P. H. Petersen,et al.  Analytical performance characteristics should be judged against objective quality specifications. , 1999, Clinical chemistry.

[18]  Giuseppe Lippi,et al.  Pre-analytical Variables in Coagulation Testing Associated With Diagnostic Errors in Hemostasis , 2012 .

[19]  Susan R Snyder,et al.  Laboratory medicine quality indicators: a review of the literature. , 2009, American journal of clinical pathology.

[20]  Nora Nikolac,et al.  Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust , 2013, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[21]  Mario Plebani,et al.  Errors in a stat laboratory: types and frequencies 10 years later. , 2007, Clinical chemistry.

[22]  Janet H. Sanders,et al.  Improving ED specimen TAT using Lean Six Sigma. , 2015, International journal of health care quality assurance.