Error Evaluation in the Laboratory Testing Process and Laboratory Information Systems

Evaluating laboratory testing process and LIS

  • Maryati Yusof Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
  • Azila
Keywords: error; evaluation; framework; laboratory information systems; Lean; total testing process; socio-technical

Abstract


Introduction: The laboratory testing process consists of five analysis phases featuring the total testing process framework. Activities in laboratory process, including those of testing, are error-prone and affect the use of laboratory information systems. This study seeks to identify error factors related to system use and the first and last phases of the laboratory testing process using a proposed framework known as total testing process-laboratory information systems.

Materials and Methods: We conducted a qualitative case study in two private hospitals and a medical laboratory. We collected data using interviews, observations, and document analysis methods involving physicians, nurses, an information technology officer, and the laboratory staff. We employed the proposed framework and Lean problem-solving tools namely Value Stream Mapping and A3 for data analysis.

Results: Errors in laboratory information systems and the laboratory testing process were attributed to failure to fulfill user requirements, poor cooperation between the information technology unit and laboratory, the inconsistency of software design in system integration, errors during inter-system data transmission, and lack of motivation in system use. The error factors are related to system development elements, namely, latent failures that considerably affected the information quality and system use. Errors in system development were also attributed to poor service quality.

Conclusion: Complex laboratory testing process and laboratory information systems require rigorous evaluation in minimizing errors and ensuring patient safety. The proposed framework and Lean approach are applicable for evaluating the laboratory testing process and laboratory information systems in a rigorous, comprehensive, and structured manner.

References

1. Baron JM, Dighe AS. Computerized Provider Order Entry in the Clinical Laboratory. J Pathol Inform. 2011;2:35. doi:10.4103/2153-3539.83740 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21886891
2. Carraro P, Zago T, Plebani M. Exploring the Initial Steps of the Testing Process: Frequency and Nature of Pre-Preanalytic Errors. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2012;58(3):638-642.
3. Yeo C, Ng W. Automation and Productivity in the Clinical Laboratory: Experience of a Tertiary Healthcare Facility. Singapore Med J. 2018;59(11):597‐601. doi:10.11622/smedj.2018136
4. Bowie P, Price J, Hepworth N, et al. System Hazards in Managing Laboratory Test Requests and Results in Primary Care: Medical Protection Database Analysis and Conceptual Model. BMJ open. 2015 Nov 27;5(11):e008968. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008968
5. Mathews A, Marc D. Usability Evaluation of Laboratory Information Systems. J Pathol Inform. 2017;8(40):1-13. doi:10.4103/jpi.jpi_24_17
6. Rajamani S, Kayser A, Emerson E, et al. Evaluation of Data Exchange Process for Interoperability and Impact on Electronic Laboratory Reporting Quality to a State Public Health Agency. Online J Public Health Inform. 2018;10(2):e204. doi:10.5210/ojphi.v10i2.9317
7. Sonmez C, Yıldız U, Akkaya N, et al. Preanalytical Phase Errors: Experience of a Central Laboratory. Cureus. 2020;12(3):e7335. doi:10.7759/cureus.7335
8. Lundberg GD. How Clinicians Should Use the Diagnostic Laboratory in a Changing Medical World. Clin Chim Acta 1999:3-11.
9. Plebani M, Piva E. Medical Errors: Pre-Analytical Issue in Patient Safety. J Med Biochem. 2010;29(4):310-314. doi:10.2478/v10011-010-0039-2
10. Yusof M. A Case Study Evaluation of a Critical Care Information System Adoption Using the Socio-Technical and Fit Approach. Int J Med Inf. 2015;84(7):486-499.
11. Yusof MM, Kuljis J, Paul RJ, et al. An Evaluation Framework for Health Information Systems: Incorporating Human, Organizational and Technology-Fit Factors (Hot-Fit). Int J Med Inf. 2008;77(6):386-398.
12. Carraro P, Plebani M. Errors in a Stat Laboratory: Types and Frequencies 10 Years Later. Clin Chem. 2007 Jul;53(7):1338-42. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2007.088344 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17525103
13. Lippi G, Betsou, Cadamuro J, et al. Preanalytical Challenges - Time for Solutions. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2019;57(7):974-981. doi:10.1515/cclm-2018-1334
14. Friedman CP, Wyatt JC. Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2006.
15. Jimmerson C. Value Stream Mapping for Healthcare Made Easy. New York: CRC Press; 2010.
16. Pitt LF, Watson RT, Kavan CB. Service Quality: A Measure of Information Systems Effectiveness. MIS Quart. 1995;19(2):173-187. doi:10.2307/249687 http://www.jstor.org/stable/249687
17. Croxatto A, Prod'hom G, Faverjon F, et al. Laboratory Automation in Clinical Bacteriology: What System to Choose? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 Mar;22(3):217-35. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2015.09.030 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26806135
18. McGrowder D, Bishop R. An Evaluation of Laboratory Information Systems in Medical Laboratories in Jamaica. Laboratory Management Information Systems: Current Requirements and Future Perspectives. Hershey: IGI Global; 2014. p. 280.
19. Schoenberg N, Fondahn E, Lane M. Introduction to Patient Safety. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2016. (The Washington Manual of Patient Safety).
20. Ellwood PM, Jr., Lundberg GD. Managed Care: A Work in Progress. JAMA. 1996 Oct 2;276(13):1083-6.
21. Hawkins R. Managing the Pre-and Post-Analytical Phases of the Total Testing Process. Ann Lab Med. 2012;32(1):5-16.
22. Becher EC, Chassin MR. Improving Quality, Minimizing Error: Making It Happen. Health Affairs. 2001;3(20):68-81. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.20.3.68
23. Deetz CO, Nolan DK, Scott MG. An Examination of the Usefulness of Repeat Testing Practices in a Large Hospital Clinical Chemistry Laboratory. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;137(1):20-25.
24. Kwok J, Jones B. Unnecessary Repeat Requesting of Tests: An Audit in a Government Hospital Immunology Laboratory. J Clin Pathol. 2005 May;58(5):457-62. doi:10.1136/jcp.2004.021691
25. Spath P. Error Reduction in Health Care: A Systems Approach to Improving Patient Safety. San Francisco: Wiley; 2011.
26. Randell EW, Yenice S, Khine Wamono AA, et al. Autoverification of Test Results in the Core Clinical Laboratory. Clin Biochem. 2019;73:11-25. doi: doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2019.08.002
27. Ambaraghassi G, Béliveau C, Labbé AC, et al. Relevance or Performance: Potential Savings Associated with Verification of Prior Results before Performing Microbiology Analysis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;93(2):136-139. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2018.09.009
28. Jimmerson C, Weber D, Sobek DK. Reducing Waste and Errors: Piloting Lean Principles at Intermountain Healthcare. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Safety. 2005 May;31(5):249-57. doi:10.1016/s1553-7250(05)31032-4
29. Khajouei R, Saghaeiannejad S, Jahanbakhsh M, et al. Assessment of the Performance of the Laboratory Information System (LIS) Based on the Standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). J Health Biomed Inform. 2015;2(1):8-16.
30. Wang Z, Peng C, Kang H, et al. Design and Evaluation of a LIS-Based Autoverification System for Coagulation Assays in a Core Clinical Laboratory. BMC Med Inform Dec Mak. 2019 Jul 3;19(1):123. doi:10.1186/s12911-019-0848-2
Published
2021/05/17
Section
Original paper