Developing key laboratory performance indicators: a feasibility study. Potential roles for CLMA.
The challenges (and opportunities) for laboratory management posed by cost control, managed care, information networks, and health system integration call for both short- and long-term responses. In rapidly evolving markets, new measures are needed to assess how effectively laboratories manage the information process. The objective of the research described in this report was to determine the feasibility of a system that would collect, analyze, and report nationally standardized indicators of laboratory performance and that would meet the needs of health system executives, managed care plans, and external agencies, as well as laboratory service providers. The feasibility study involved extensive interviews with a broad cross-section of the health-care industry, as well as a literature search of journals, newspapers, marketing brochures, and other documents addressing comparative performance assessment in the health-care industry. The study investigated the current status of comparative performance assessment in the health-care industry. We found that there are several important lessons laboratorians can learn from the experiences of others involved in key indicator development and performance assessment: Key indicators must measure those aspects of performance that are important and meaningful to laboratory customers. Indicators developed for laboratory management performance should be compatible with performance criteria established in other health-care sectors, particularly those that represent managed care and other customers of laboratory services. The identification of participants in the process of consensus development should be as inclusive as possible if the indicators are to gain wide acceptance. Standardized definitions and data collection rules are essential for data comparability. Credibility is key. It is necessary that the chosen measures be not only reliable, valid, and easy to implement, they must also be demonstrably related to patient care outcomes. In order to make meaningful interlaboratory comparisons, an effective system for peer groupings is also required. Currently available systems for collecting and reporting laboratory performance data were also reviewed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
Zinn
J
J
School of Business and Management, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Getzen
T
T
D002984:Clinical Laboratory Information Systems; D003659:Decision Making, Organizational; D017598:Efficiency, Organizational / Q000592:standards*; D007591:Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; D007755:Laboratories, Hospital / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards; D008330:Management Audit / Q000592:standards*; D008396:Maryland; D010414:Pennsylvania; D011787:Quality of Health Care; D014481:United States