Adding value to laboratory medicine: a professional responsibility

Abstract Laboratory medicine is a medical specialty at the centre of healthcare. When used optimally laboratory medicine generates knowledge that can facilitate patient safety, improve patient outcomes, shorten patient journeys and lead to more cost-effective healthcare. Optimal use of laboratory medicine relies on dynamic and authoritative leadership outside as well as inside the laboratory. The first responsibility of the head of a clinical laboratory is to ensure the provision of a high quality service across a wide range of parameters culminating in laboratory accreditation against an international standard, such as ISO 15189. From that essential baseline the leadership of laboratory medicine at local, national and international level needs to ‘add value’ to ensure the optimal delivery, use, development and evaluation of the services provided for individuals and for groups of patients. A convenient tool to illustrate added value is use of the mnemonic ‘SCIENCE’. This tool allows added value to be considered in seven domains: standardisation and harmonisation; clinical effectiveness; innovation; evidence-based practice; novel applications; cost-effectiveness; and education of others. The assessment of added value in laboratory medicine may be considered against a framework that comprises three dimensions: operational efficiency; patient management; and patient behaviours. The profession and the patient will benefit from sharing examples of adding value to laboratory medicine.

[1]  J. Rizzo,et al.  Understanding the medical and nonmedical value of diagnostic testing. , 2010, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[2]  René Dybkaer,et al.  Properties and units in the clinical laboratory sciences, Part XXIII. The NPU terminology, principles and implementation –a user’s guide (Technical Report 2011) (IFCC–IUPAC) , 2012, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[3]  W. Verboeket-van de Venne,et al.  Reflective testing: adding value to laboratory testing , 2012, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[4]  P. Neumann,et al.  A Framework for Assessing the Value of Laboratory Diagnostics , 2012 .

[5]  Bernhard Maassen,et al.  In vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices , 1994 .

[6]  L. Hood,et al.  Predictive, personalized, preventive, participatory (P4) cancer medicine , 2011, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[7]  C. Price.  Evidence-based laboratory medicine: is it working in practice? , 2012, The Clinical biochemist. Reviews.

[8]  黄亚明.  Lab Tests Online , 2010 .

[9]  J A Smith,et al.  Value-added laboratory medicine in an era of managed care. , 1995, Clinical chemistry.

[10]  Craig Ramsay,et al.  Effect of enhanced feedback and brief educational reminder messages on laboratory test requesting in primary care: a cluster randomised trial , 2006, The Lancet.

[11]  Callum G. Fraser,et al.  Biological Variation: From Principles to Practice , 2001 .

[12]  Michael Legg,et al.  Harmonisation of laboratory testing. , 2012, The Clinical biochemist. Reviews.

[13]  G. Beastall.  The modernisation of pathology and laboratory medicine in the UK: networking into the future. , 2008, The Clinical biochemist. Reviews.

[14]  R. McLawhon.  Patient safety and clinical effectiveness as imperatives for achieving harmonization inside and outside the clinical laboratory. , 2011, Clinical chemistry.

[15]  Mario Plebani,et al.  Errors in laboratory medicine. , 2002, Clinical chemistry.

[16]  J. Genzen,et al.  Pathology consultation on reporting of critical values. , 2011, American journal of clinical pathology.

[17]  C. Price,et al.  The challenges in commissioning laboratory medicine (pathology) services , 2008 .

[18]  Amit Agarwal,et al.  Do companion diagnostics make economic sense for drug developers? , 2012, New Biotechnology.

[19]  David M Bunk,et al.  Roadmap for harmonization of clinical laboratory measurement procedures. , 2011, Clinical chemistry.

[20]  J. Barth.  Clinical quality indicators in laboratory medicine , 2012, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[21]  I. Barlow.  Are biochemistry interpretative comments helpful? Results of a general practitioner and nurse practitioner survey , 2008, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[22]  Paul R Billings.  Three barriers to innovative diagnostics , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[23]  D. Novis,et al.  Reducing Errors in the Practices of Pathology and Laboratory MedicineAn Industrial Approach , 2006 .

[24]  Sverre Sandberg,et al.  Evidence-based guidelines in laboratory medicine: principles and methods. , 2004, Clinical chemistry.

[25]  W. Smellie,et al.  Demand management and test request rationalization , 2012, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[26]  Cindy Farquhar,et al.  3 The Cochrane Library , 1996 .

[27]  Ulla Magdal Petersen,et al.  Properties and units in the clinical laboratory sciences. Part XXIII. The NPU terminology, principles, and implementation: A user’s guide (IUPAC Technical Report) , 2011 .

[28]  A. Dhar,et al.  National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence , 2005 .

[29]  Patrick M M Bossuyt,et al.  Quantifying the accuracy of a diagnostic test or marker. , 2012, Clinical chemistry.

[30]  M. Hallworth,et al.  The ‘70% claim’: what is the evidence base? , 2011, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[31]  Mauro Panteghini,et al.  The future of laboratory medicine: understanding the new pressures. , 2004, The Clinical biochemist. Reviews.

[32]  J. Barth.  Selecting clinical quality indicators for laboratory medicine , 2012, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[33]  G. Challand,et al.  Experience with Assessing the Quality of Comments on Clinical Biochemistry Reports , 1999, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[34]  A. Madabhushi,et al.  Integrated diagnostics: a conceptual framework with examples , 2010, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[35]  W. Huisman.  European medical laboratory accreditation. Present situation and steps to harmonisation , 2012, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.