Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic Laboratories in India: Investigating Quality Characteristics, Productivity and Time of Reporting

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is the result of a Survey of diagnostics laboratories in the Asia Pacific (APAC) region with perspectives on India, investigating the three key aspects that are central to the success of a laboratory: quality, cost and speed. This Survey provides a comparison in selected performance indicators in a large number of diagnostic laboratories in a broad range of countries in the APAC region. The Survey provides data on some key performance characteristics such as quality improvement activities, staff productivity and Turnaround Time (TAT). This Survey also demonstrates in India the common issues facing all the laboratories surveyed but also common solutions using a Quality Systems approach which involves Accreditation, customer responsiveness, greater use of IT, automation and Lean principles. Indian laboratories reported less automation and fewer laboratories have Laboratory Information Systems. The productivity by various measures in Indian laboratories was less than in other APAC laboratories. TAT was more commonly monitored in the Indian specimens though there were fewer laboratories compared with the APAC specimens where there were separate TATs for Short Turnaround Time and Routine specimens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schiff GD, Hasan O, Kim S, Abrams R, Cosby K, Lambert BL, et al. Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1881–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. The Institute of Medicine. Improving diagnosis in healthcare. Washington: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sciacovelli L, Aita A, Plebani M. Extra-analytical quality indicators and laboratory performances. Clin Biochem. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.03.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sciacovelli L, Lippi G, Sumarac Z, West J, Garcia Del Pino CI, Furtado VK, et al. Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: the status of the progress of IFCC working group “Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety” project. CCLM. 2016;5(3):348–57.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Leatherman S, Ferris TG, Berwick D, Omaswa F, Crisp N. The role of quality improvement in strengthening health systems in developing countries. Int J Qual Health Care. 2010;22(4):237–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shin BM, Chae SL, Min WK, Lee WG, Lim YA, Lee DH. The implementation and effects of a clinical laboratory accreditation program in Korea from 1999 to 2006. Korean J Lab Med. 2009;29(2):163–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wattanasri N, Manoroma W, Viriyayudhagorn S. Laboratory accreditation in Thailand: a systemic approach. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;134(4):534–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Peter TF, Rotz PD, Blair DH, Khine A, Freeman RF, Murtagh RM. Impact of laboratory accreditation on patient care and the health system. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;134(4):550–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tholen DW. Improvements in performance in medical diagnostics tests documented by inter-laboratory comparison programs. Accred Qual Assur. 2002;7(4):146–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chaudary R, Das SS, Ojha S, Khetan D, Sonker A. The external quality assessment scheme: five years’ experience as a participating laboratory. Asian J Transfus Sci. 2010;4(1):28–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Badrick TC, Gutscher A, Sakamoto N, Chin D. Diagnostic laboratories in Asia Pacific region: investigation on quality characteristics and time of reporting. Clin Biochem. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.03.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Plebani M, Carraro P. Mistakes in a stat laboratory: types and frequency. Clin Chem. 1997;43:1348–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kristensen GBB, Aakre KM, Sandberg S. How to conduct external quality assessment schemes for the pre-analytical phase? Biochemia Medica. 2014;24(1):114–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Khoury M, Burnett L, Mackay M. Error rate in Australian chemical pathology laboratories. Med J Aust. 1996;165:128–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mainz J. Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15:523–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Lippi G. Quality indicators for laboratory diagnostics: consensus is needed. Ann Clin Biochem. 2011;48:479.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sciacovelli L, O’Kane M, Skaik YA, Caciagli P, Pellegrini C, Da Rin G, et al. IFCC WG-LEPS. Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: from theory to practice. Preliminary data from the IFCC Working Group Project “Laboratory errors and patient safety”. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011;49:835–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nakhleh RE, Souers RJ, Bashleben CP, Talbert ML, Karcher DS, Meier F, et al. Fifteen years’ experience of a college of american pathologists program for continuous monitoring and improvement. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(9):1150–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Adyanthaya S, Jose M. Quality and safety aspects in histopathology laboratory. J Oral Maxill Path. 2013;17(3):402–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Agarwal R, Chaturvedi S, Chhillar N, Goyal R, Pant I, Tripathi CB. Role of intervention on laboratory performance: evaluation of quality indicators in a tertiary care hospital. Ind J Clin Biochem. 2012;27(1):61–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dolnicar S, Laesser C, Matus K. Online versus paper: format effects in tourism surveys. J Travel Res. 2009;47(3):295–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Sydney, Australia

    Tony C. Badrick

  2. Roche Diagnostics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Singapore, Singapore

    Anton Gutscher & Daniel Chin

Authors
  1. Tony C. Badrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anton Gutscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Chin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tony C. Badrick.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

TCB declares that they have no conflict of interest. AG declares that he/she has no conflict of interest. AG declares that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Badrick, T.C., Gutscher, A. & Chin, D. Diagnostic Laboratories in India: Investigating Quality Characteristics, Productivity and Time of Reporting. Ind J Clin Biochem 33, 304–313 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12291-017-0679-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12291-017-0679-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation