CONTEXT
Publicly available information concerning laboratory staffing benchmarks is scarce. One of the few publications on this topic summarized the findings of a Q-Probes study performed in 2004. This publication reports a similar survey with data collected in 2010.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the relationship between staffing levels in specified laboratory sections and test volumes in these sections and quantify management span of control.
DESIGN
The study defined 4 laboratory sections: anatomic pathology (including cytology), chemistry/hematology/immunology, microbiology, and transfusion medicine. It divided staff into 3 categories: management, nonmanagement (operational or bench staff), and doctoral (MD, PhD) supervisory staff. People in these categories were tabulated as full-time equivalents and exclusions specified. Tests were counted in uniform formats, specified for each laboratory section, according to Medicare rules for the bundling and unbundling of tests.
RESULTS
Ninety-eight participating institutions provided data that showed significant associations between test volumes and staffing for all 4 sections. There was wide variation in productivity based on volume. There was no relationship between testing volume per laboratory section and management span of control. Higher productivity in chemistry/hematology/immunology was associated with a higher fraction of tests coming from nonacute care patients. In both the 2004 and 2010 studies, productivity was inseparably linked to test volume.
CONCLUSIONS
Higher test volume was associated with higher productivity ratios in chemistry/hematology/immunology and transfusion medicine sections. The impact of various testing services on productivity is section-specific.