Printer Friendly

Quality control: can we achieve error-free work?

No one who works in a clinical laboratory wants to make mistakes. Yet a system in force throughout the field tells us that it is all right to slip up occasionally. That system, ironically, is quality control.

Current quality control practices hinder attainment of total quality or error-free performance. Allowing a tolerance of, say, 1 per cent of results outside 2 standard deviations is tantamount to accepting 1 per cent error.

The real goal of quality control should be no error at all. The concept is called zero defect is japan. It was picked up in recent years by U.S. industrial leaders, who call it error-free work.

Corning Glass Works, MetPath's parent company, adopted the approach in October 1983. It has since invested $2 million on educational programs for management and employees, including establishment of the Corning Quality Institute. What we learned at the institute helped us pursue error-free work in our reference laboratory organization.

Management by prevention is an essential part of the process. That means examining the entire operation to identify problem areas and get at the root causes to stop errors from occurring. We consider it crucial, for example, that our 600 couriers not miss a single pickup in bringing us thousands of specimens a day. If a pickup is missed, the inclination may be to blame the courier involved. But it is more useful to find out how the mistake came about. Then we should do whatever is needed to help the courier avoid the problem in the future.

There are no quick fixes. Management by prevention encompasses a variety of activities, including training, defining clients' requirements and determining how to meet them, and having measurements that tell the lab how it is doing. It is an unending process rather than a program that comes into being with an inital burst of enthusiasm and eventually fades out.

A refusal to stand for any mistakes may sound idealistic. Everyone is human and makes mistakes, I am told when discussing quality at medical schools. My response is how many dropped babies would you accept in the hospital nursery? One in 1,000? One in 10,000? No one ever gives a number because the goal is always zero dropped babies.

We apply the same high standard in our personal lives. How many times do we accept a bank error in our checking accounts? Or the wrong merchandise delivered to our homes? In these and many other instances, the tolerance is zero, not 1 or 5 per cent.

As the last examples suggest, quality is among other things a financial issue. A failure to manage quality can cost most of us in the health care field anywhere from 20 to 30 per cent of our resources.

There is a cost of doing work wrong and a cost of doing it right. The first cost always exceeds the second. Besides incurring the expense of repeat tests, a reference laboratory can lose clients because of inadequate test quality, missed pickups, or poor turnaround time.

Hospital laboratories have had captive clients in the past, but that's changing as a result of greater competition among hospitals and from alternative health-care delivery systems. Each hospial will have to pay greater attention to meeting patients' requirements--from maintaining a reputation for good care and good results to rating well in terms of food preparation, cleanliness, relative quite, and other aspects of service.

To implement the error-free process, our laboratory organization set up its own quality school and is forming quality improvement tems (QITs) in each functional area. Everyone, at every level, is involved. All senior officers participate in a corporate QIT (Figure I). We meet every three or four weeks for a full day, bginning at 8 a.m.

First we listed administrative questions that the corporate QIT team should answer, namely: Are we giving our employees specific skills and knowledge to do quality work? What more should we do? How much of a commitment will we make to this process? How do we encourage employees to think about quality?

Next we worked up a list of problems, giving each a priority based on the dollar impact that a solution would have. We assigned responsibilities and time limits for dealing with the problems. Resource needs were reviewed, and we kept tubs on progress toward solutions. Plans called for us to extend the process to the entire company once we achieved some dollar successes. We appointed a senior administrator to the full-time position of coordinating the quality process. He reports to the laboratory's president.

To involve all employees from the start, we arranged quarterly meetings, showed videotapes on the error-free process, and formed 14 QITs. The first QITs were formed in hematology. At three-day seminars, members learned a common language and the principles of the new approach to quality, which makes for quicker and more effective communication with colleagues. QITs in turn create corrective action teams to solve specific problems.

Any hospital or reference laboratory interested in adopting the total quality approach should consider several requirements:

* Commitment. Obviously, a drive to eliminate all error demands dedication. Corning's substantial cash outlays for education exemplify this. Our lab's program has strong administrative support, too. In a hospital, a single department such as the laboratory can start an error-free process, but it is better if the concept is applied throughout the institution.

* Education. By investing sufficiently in training employees, the organization can build a staff that really understands the quality process. Throughout the Corning organization, employees are trained to help them apply quality principles in their everyday work.

* Teamwork. Individuals cannot bring about error-free work on their own, even though personal dedication and effort are the bedrock of quality performance. Teams work better because many qualtiy-related problems are complex and span the entire organization. Teams can also prioritize problems based on dollar impact.

Although everyone in the organization should be involved in the error-free process, someone has to be in charge. There should be head of quality and high-level management control of quality.

* Cost analysis. Proper mangement of quality makes strong contributions to profit and cash flow. Discuss quality in Financial terms--how much each problem is costing the organization--so that administrators and financial officers can better understand what you are trying to accomplish. Then they are more likely to provide the needed resources.

At the hospital level, a 60 per cent occupancy rate compared to a neighboring institution's 90 per cent is certainly a dollar issue, and it may indicate serious quality problems. Improper billing procedures may also keep a hospital from maximizing its reimbursement. Again, errors are costing the institution money.

* Communication. When the laboratory receives what seems to be an unreasonable test request, it usually reflects a problem the clinician has and wants help with. Say the request is for an esoteric, difficult, and unreliable test on spinal fluid. I have found in such instances that what the clinician really requires is assistance in confirming or ruling out multiple sclerosis, not an esoteric test result.

When the laboratory understands the requirement, the problem shifts to helping the clinician choose the best workup. If this takes place at the outset, you have the low cost of doing things right. There are no charges for unnecessary and expensive testing.

Another aspect of communication: Employees should see measurements of their error rates and performance. For example, we post a graphic overview of the number of QNS specimens in each laboratory. Each department should have a public record of its performance. Employees who receive clear feedback on how well they are doing are motivated by pride to work on problems.

Let's turn now to a small problem that Dr. Michael Rosen, manager of the RIA lab, and I addressed experimentally after we came back from the Corning Quality Institute. It illustrates how error-free quality control works.

Customers complained that we were reporting 24-hour urine test results without indicating urine volume. Th requirement was to have all such reports leave the laboratory with the volume, so we knew we had a defect.

We found a "pulse point" for the problem in general chemistry. Our computer-generated reports provided a clear measure of how many urine volume figures were missing. Eighty per cent of our 24-hour urine tests had no volume listed on the worksheet.

Many clients submitted 24-hour urine bottles without measuring volume because they expected us to do it. But not all employees who handled specimen accession had been instructed to measure and record 24-hour urine volumes. Throughout the test process, no one questioned or returned requisitions that lacked volume figures.

We were still so green at the error-free process that we thought we could solve the problem by explaining the correct procedure to accessioning employees. The next time we looked at the general chemistry worksheets, volume figures were missing from 50 per cent of reports--down from 80 per cent, but still far from zero. We had made the mistake of thinking that there was one cause for the entire problem.

Digging deeper, we discovered that after measuring volumes, employees recorded them on the bottles but not always on the requisitions. Occasionally they also separated requisitions from corresponding bottles. They assumed that technologists performing the tests would copy volumes from bottle lablels onto worksheets.

We corrected this by requiring specimen handling to mark volumes on bottles and requisitions, and to keep the two together. When requisitions went to the keypunch office, operators now transferred volume measurements to worksheets.

But we had succumbed to a quick fix again, because missed urine volumes declined only slghtly to 40 per cent. The system was defective somewhere else. Apparently, we would have to become more involved in the overall test process and invest more time than we first thought.

If volumes were entered on requisitions but did not appear on worksheets, they must be falling through cracks in the keypunch area. We placed cards in front of each computer console reminding operators to punch in volumes that appeared on requisitions. To monitor its own performance, the keypunch group kept a nightly score of volumes that didn't make it from requisitions to worksheets.

Keypunch errors abated. About 80 per cent of urine volumes were reported. This was good, but it wasn't error-free. Could computer programming be faulty?

The answer was yes. Keypunched volumes didn't always appear on worksheets. The data processing department discovered that some operator didn't know the computer demands four-digit entries. A 950 ml specimen had to be entered as "0950 ml." All measurements were now entered in this manner.

Data processing also found a programming glitch. When requisitions included creatinine clearance indices, the computer entered the keypunched 24-hour urine volumes into the calculation but did not post them separately on the worksheet.

In a few weeks, programmers eliminated this deficiency. Now 95 per cent of reports listed urine volumes. We could assert that every specimen properly submitted for 24-hour urine study showed the volume on the worksheet.

Five per cent of reports were still deficient, we realized, because clients provided unacceptable specimens. These included random urine collections for 24-hour creatinine clearance testing or 24-hour specimens submitted in improper containers, not graduated for measurement.

It would have been natural to push responsibility for these lapse onto clients and consider our error-free effort complete.

But the delinquent 5 per cent meant we failed to show our clients how to use the laboratory's services properly. It was incumbent on us to do a better job.

We compiled a list of all accounts that didn't follow proper sampling protocols. Then we instructed them, via letter or during service calls, on how to collect specimens correctly.

It took us three to four months to reach the last stage, but we're not going to stop the process until every client receives a 24-hour urine volume report when it is required. That is the error-free approach.
COPYRIGHT 1985 Nelson Publishing
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1985 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Gambino, S. Raymond
Publication:Medical Laboratory Observer
Date:Mar 1, 1985
Previous Article:Develop your personal DRG survival plan.
Next Article:Prompt lab response to an emergency alert.

Related Articles
Clinical chemistry.
Doing it right the first time.
A QA plan to monitor charted lab results.
Establishing and evaluating QC acceptability criteria.
Finding control in quality control of unit-use prothrombin time tests.
Crompton OSI Specialties achieves Class A certification. (Industry News).
Benchmark to a more successful lab operation.
Use some horse sense with QC.
CTS standardization: from donor to recipient.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters