Advertisement

Journal of Medical Systems

, 42:28 | Cite as

Key Performance Indicators to Measure Improvement After Implementation of Total Laboratory Automation Abbott Accelerator a3600

  • Marijana MilerEmail author
  • Nora Nikolac Gabaj
  • Lora Dukic
  • Ana-Maria Simundic
Systems-Level Quality Improvement
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Systems-Level Quality Improvement

Abstract

The aim of the study was to estimate improvement of work efficiency in the laboratory after implementation of total laboratory automation (TLA) by Abbott Accelerator a3600 in the laboratory with measuring different key performance indicators (KPIs) before and after TLA implementation. The objective was also to recommend steps for defining KPIs in other laboratories. For evaluation of improvement 10 organizational and/or technical KPIs were defined for all phases of laboratory work and measured before (November 2013) and after (from 2015 to 2017) TLA implementation. Out of 10 defined KPIs, 9 were successfully measured and significantly improved. Waiting time for registration of samples in the LIS was significantly reduced from 16 (9–28) to 9 (6–16) minutes after TLA (P < 0.001). After TLA all tests were performed at core biochemistry analyzers which significantly reduced walking distance for sample management (for more than 800 m per worker) and number of tube touches (for almost 50%). Analyzers downtime and engagement time for analyzers maintenance was reduced for 50 h and 28 h per month, respectively. TLA eliminated manual dilution of samples with extreme results with sigma values increment from 3.4 to >6 after TLA. Although median turnaround time TAT for potassium and troponin was higher (for approximately 20 min), number of outliers with TAT >60 min expressed as sigma values were satisfying (>3). Implementation of the TLA improved the most of the processes in our laboratory with 9 out of 10 properly defined and measured KPIs. With proper planning and defining of KPIs, every laboratory could measure changes in daily workflow.

Keywords

Key performance indicators (KPI) Productivity Total laboratory automation (TLA) Quality 

Notes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Author Marijana Miler declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Nora Nikolac declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Lora Dukic declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Ana-Maria Simundic declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Hawker, C.D., Laboratory automation: total and subtotal. Clin. Lab. Med. 27(4):749–770, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zaninotto, M., and Plebani, M., The “hospital central laboratory”: automation, integration and clinical usefulness. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 48(7):911–917, 2010.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cameron, P.A., Schull, M.J., and Cooke, M.W., A framework for measuring quality in the emergency department. Emerg. Med. J. 28:735–740, 2011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harvey, H.B., Hassanzadeh, E., Aran, S., Rosenthal, D.I., Thrall, J.H., and Abujudeh, H.H., Key performance indicators in radiology: you can’t manage what you can’t measure. Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol. 45(2):115–121, 2016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bovend’Eerdt, T.J.H., Writing SMART rehabilitation goals and achieving goal attainment scaling: a practical guide. Clin. Rehabil. 23:4352–4361, 2009.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Armbruster, D.A., Overcash, D.R., and Reyes, J., Clinical Chemistry Laboratory Automation in the 21st Century - Amat Victoria curam (Victory loves careful preparation). Clin. Biochem. Rev. 35(3):143–153, 2014.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Rizk, M.M., Zaki, A., Hossam, N., and Aboul-Ela, Y., Evaluating laboratory key performance using quality indicators in Alexandria University Hospital Clinical Chemistry Laboratories. J. Egypt Publ. Health Assoc. 89(3):105–113, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salinas, M., López-Garrigós, M., Gutiérrez, M., Lugo, J., Sirvent, J.V., and Uris, J., Achieving continuous improvement in laboratory organization through performance measurements: a seven-year experience. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 48(1):57–61, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gannon, B., Jones, C., McCabe, A., O’Sullivan, R., and Wakai, A., An economic cost analysis of emergency department key performance indicators in Ireland. Eur J Emerg Med. 24(3):196–201, 2017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Santos, M.A., Moraes, R.M., and Passos, S.R., Performance indicators and decision making for outsourcing public health laboratory services. Rev. Saude Publica. 46(3):456–465, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Markin, R.S., and Whalen, S.A., Laboratory automation: trajectory, technology, and tactics. Clin. Chem. 46(5):764–771, 2000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Plebani, M., Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine? Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 44:750–759, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simundic, A.M., and Lippi, G., Preanalytical phase – a continuous challenge for laboratory professionals. Biochem. Med. (Zagreb). 22(2):145–149, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kopcinovic, L.M., Trifunović, J., Pavosevic, T., and Nikolac, N., Croatian survey on critical results reporting. Biochem. Med. (Zagreb). 25(2):193–202, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Favaloro, E.J., Lippi, G., and Adcock, D.M., Preanalytical and postanalytical variables: the leading causes of diagnostic error in hemostasis? Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 34(7):612–634, 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katz, C., McNicholas, K., Bounds, R., Figurelle, T., Jones, C., Farley, H., Witkin, G., McLane, M.A., and Johnson, S.R., Improving patient safety through enhanced communication between emergency department clinicians and medical laboratory staff. J. Clin. Outcomes Manag. 20(10):455–462, 2013.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Flegar-Meštrić, Z., Perkov, S., and Radeljak, A., Standardization in laboratory medicine: Adoption of common reference intervals to the Croatian population. World J. Method. 6(1):93–100, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cuhadar, S., Atay, A., Koseoglu, M., Dirican, A., and Hur, A., Stability studies of common biochemical analytes in serum separator tubes with or without gel barrier subjected to various storage conditions. Biochem. Med. (Zagreb). 22(2):202–214, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lam, C.W., and Jacob, E., Implementing a laboratory automation system: experience of a large clinical laboratory. J. Lab. Autom. 17(1):16–23, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martin, H., Metcalfe, S., and Whichello, R., Specimen labeling errors: a retrospective study. Online J. Nurs. Inform. 19(2), 2015. Available at http://www.himss.org/ojni. Accessed 22 May 2017.
  23. 23.
    Ialongo, C., Pieri, M., and Bernardini, S., Artificial neural network for total laboratory automation to improve the management of sample dilution. LAS Technol. 22(1):44–49, 2017.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dukic, K., Zoric, M., Starcic, J., Culjak, M., Saracevic, A., and Miler, M., How compliant are technicians with universal safety measures in medical laboratories in Croatia? Biochem. Med. 25(3):386–392, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miler, M., and Nikolac, N., Patient safety is not compromised by excluding microscopic examination of negative urine dipstick. Ann. Clin. Biochem., 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0004563216687589.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sarkozi, L., Simson, E., and Ramanathan, L., The effects of total laboratory automation on the management of a clinical chemistry laboratory. Retrospective analysis of 36 years. Clin. Chim. Acta. 329(1–2):89–94, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goswani, B., Singh, B., Chawla, R., Gupta, V.K., and Mallika, V., Turn around Time (TAT) as a Benchmark of Laboratory Performance. Indian J. Clin. Biochem. 25:376–379, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Angeletti, S., De Cesaris, M., Hart, J.G., Urbano, M., Vitali, M.A., Fragliasso, F., and Dicuonzo, G., Laboratory automation and intra-laboratory turnaround time: experience at the University Hospital Campus Bio-Medico of Rome. J. Lab. Autom. 20(6):652–658, 2015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lou, A.H., Elnenaei, M.O., Sadek, I., Thompson, S., Crocker, B.D., and Nassar, B., Evaluation of the impact of a total automation system in a large core laboratory on turnaround time. Clin. Biochem. 49(16–17):1254–1258, 2016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fei, Y., Zeng, R., Wang, W., He, F., Zhong, K., and Wang, Z., National survey on intra-laboratory turnaround time for some most common routine and stat laboratory analyses in 479 laboratories in China. Biochem. Med. (Zagreb). 25(2):213–221, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pati, H.P., and Singh, G., Turnaround Time (TAT): difference in concept for laboratory and clinician. Indian J. Hematol. Blood. Transfus. 30(2):81–84, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical ChemistrySestre Milosrdnice University Hospital CenterZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Department of Medical Laboratory DiagnosticsUniversity Hospital “Sveti Duh”ZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations