A critical review of laboratory performance indicators

Eline R. Tsai, Andrei N. Tintu, Derya Demirtas, Richard J. Boucherie, Robert de Jonge, Yolanda B. de Rijke

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Healthcare budgets worldwide are under constant pressure to reduce costs while improving efficiency and quality. This phenomenon is also visible in clinical laboratories. Efficiency gains can be achieved by reducing the error rate and by improving the laboratory’s layout and logistics. Performance indicators (PIs) play a crucial role in this process as they allow for performance assessment. This review aids in the process for selecting laboratory PIs—which is not trivial—by providing an overview of frequently used PIs in the literature that can also be used in clinical laboratories. We conducted a systematic review of the laboratory medicine literature on PIs. As the testing process in clinical laboratories can be viewed as a production process, we also reviewed the production processes literature on PIs. The reviewed literature relates to the design, optimization or performance assessment of such processes. The most frequently cited PIs relate to pre-analytical errors, timeliness, resource utilization, cost, and the amount of congestion. Their citation frequency in the literature is used as a proxy for their importance. PIs are discussed in terms of their definition, measurability and impact. The use of suitable PIs is crucial in production processes, including clinical laboratories. By also reviewing the production processes literature, additional relevant PIs for clinical laboratories were found. The PIs in the laboratory medicine literature mostly relate to laboratory errors, while the PIs in the production processes literature relate to the amount of congestion in the process.
Original languageEnglish
JournalCritical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Cite this

Tsai, Eline R. ; Tintu, Andrei N. ; Demirtas, Derya ; Boucherie, Richard J. ; de Jonge, Robert ; de Rijke, Yolanda B. / A critical review of laboratory performance indicators. In: Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences. 2019.
@article{c98c4810dbd04344b590bdd97d2fb66b,
title = "A critical review of laboratory performance indicators",
abstract = "Healthcare budgets worldwide are under constant pressure to reduce costs while improving efficiency and quality. This phenomenon is also visible in clinical laboratories. Efficiency gains can be achieved by reducing the error rate and by improving the laboratory’s layout and logistics. Performance indicators (PIs) play a crucial role in this process as they allow for performance assessment. This review aids in the process for selecting laboratory PIs—which is not trivial—by providing an overview of frequently used PIs in the literature that can also be used in clinical laboratories. We conducted a systematic review of the laboratory medicine literature on PIs. As the testing process in clinical laboratories can be viewed as a production process, we also reviewed the production processes literature on PIs. The reviewed literature relates to the design, optimization or performance assessment of such processes. The most frequently cited PIs relate to pre-analytical errors, timeliness, resource utilization, cost, and the amount of congestion. Their citation frequency in the literature is used as a proxy for their importance. PIs are discussed in terms of their definition, measurability and impact. The use of suitable PIs is crucial in production processes, including clinical laboratories. By also reviewing the production processes literature, additional relevant PIs for clinical laboratories were found. The PIs in the laboratory medicine literature mostly relate to laboratory errors, while the PIs in the production processes literature relate to the amount of congestion in the process.",
author = "Tsai, {Eline R.} and Tintu, {Andrei N.} and Derya Demirtas and Boucherie, {Richard J.} and {de Jonge}, Robert and {de Rijke}, {Yolanda B.}",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1080/10408363.2019.1641789",
language = "English",
journal = "Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences",
issn = "1040-8363",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",

}

A critical review of laboratory performance indicators. / Tsai, Eline R.; Tintu, Andrei N.; Demirtas, Derya; Boucherie, Richard J.; de Jonge, Robert; de Rijke, Yolanda B.

In: Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A critical review of laboratory performance indicators

AU - Tsai, Eline R.

AU - Tintu, Andrei N.

AU - Demirtas, Derya

AU - Boucherie, Richard J.

AU - de Jonge, Robert

AU - de Rijke, Yolanda B.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Healthcare budgets worldwide are under constant pressure to reduce costs while improving efficiency and quality. This phenomenon is also visible in clinical laboratories. Efficiency gains can be achieved by reducing the error rate and by improving the laboratory’s layout and logistics. Performance indicators (PIs) play a crucial role in this process as they allow for performance assessment. This review aids in the process for selecting laboratory PIs—which is not trivial—by providing an overview of frequently used PIs in the literature that can also be used in clinical laboratories. We conducted a systematic review of the laboratory medicine literature on PIs. As the testing process in clinical laboratories can be viewed as a production process, we also reviewed the production processes literature on PIs. The reviewed literature relates to the design, optimization or performance assessment of such processes. The most frequently cited PIs relate to pre-analytical errors, timeliness, resource utilization, cost, and the amount of congestion. Their citation frequency in the literature is used as a proxy for their importance. PIs are discussed in terms of their definition, measurability and impact. The use of suitable PIs is crucial in production processes, including clinical laboratories. By also reviewing the production processes literature, additional relevant PIs for clinical laboratories were found. The PIs in the laboratory medicine literature mostly relate to laboratory errors, while the PIs in the production processes literature relate to the amount of congestion in the process.

AB - Healthcare budgets worldwide are under constant pressure to reduce costs while improving efficiency and quality. This phenomenon is also visible in clinical laboratories. Efficiency gains can be achieved by reducing the error rate and by improving the laboratory’s layout and logistics. Performance indicators (PIs) play a crucial role in this process as they allow for performance assessment. This review aids in the process for selecting laboratory PIs—which is not trivial—by providing an overview of frequently used PIs in the literature that can also be used in clinical laboratories. We conducted a systematic review of the laboratory medicine literature on PIs. As the testing process in clinical laboratories can be viewed as a production process, we also reviewed the production processes literature on PIs. The reviewed literature relates to the design, optimization or performance assessment of such processes. The most frequently cited PIs relate to pre-analytical errors, timeliness, resource utilization, cost, and the amount of congestion. Their citation frequency in the literature is used as a proxy for their importance. PIs are discussed in terms of their definition, measurability and impact. The use of suitable PIs is crucial in production processes, including clinical laboratories. By also reviewing the production processes literature, additional relevant PIs for clinical laboratories were found. The PIs in the laboratory medicine literature mostly relate to laboratory errors, while the PIs in the production processes literature relate to the amount of congestion in the process.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85070487420&origin=inward

UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31393193

U2 - 10.1080/10408363.2019.1641789

DO - 10.1080/10408363.2019.1641789

M3 - Review article

JO - Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences

JF - Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences

SN - 1040-8363

ER -