PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Paul N Valenstein

Publications and source records attributed to Paul N Valenstein.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

Identification errors involving clinical laboratories: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of patient and specimen identification errors at 120 institutions.

CONTEXT: Misidentified laboratory specimens may cause patient injury, but their frequency in general laboratory practice is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) the frequency of identification errors detected before and after result verification, (2) the frequency of adverse patient events due to specimen misidentification, and (3) factors associated with lower error rates and better detection of errors. DESIGN: One hundred twenty clinical laboratories provided information about identification errors during 5 weeks. RESULTS: In aggregate, 85% of errors were detected before results were released; one quarter of laboratories identified more than 95% of errors before result verification. The overall rate of patient identification errors involving released results was 55 errors per 1,000,000 billable tests. A total of 345 adverse events were reported. Most of the adverse events caused material inconvenience to the patients but did not result in any permanent harm. On average, adverse events resulted from 1 of every 18 identification errors. Extrapolating the adverse event rate observed in this study to all United States hospital-based laboratories suggests that more than 160,000 adverse events per year result from misidentification of patients' laboratory specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Identification errors are common in laboratory medicine, but most are detected before results are released, and only a fraction are associated with adverse patient events. Even when taking into consideration the design of this study, which used imperfect case finding, institutions that did a better job of detecting errors within the laboratory released a smaller proportion of results that involved specimen misidentification.

Diagnostic Errors↗

A comparison of two hospitalist models with traditional care in a community teaching hospital.

PURPOSE: Many studies have documented significant length of stay reduction and cost savings when hospitalist care is compared with traditional care. However, less is known about the concurrent performance of more than one hospitalist model in a single site. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of 10595 patients was conducted between July 2001 and June 2002 in a tertiary care community-based teaching hospital. Risk-adjusted length of stay, variable costs, 30-day readmission rates, and in-hospital and 30-day mortality were measured for patients treated by Community Physicians, Private Hospitalists and Academic Hospitalists. RESULTS: There was a 20% reduction in length of stay on the Academic Hospitalist service (p <.0001) and 8% on the Private Hospitalist service (P = .049) compared with Community Physicians. Similarly, total costs were 10% less on the Academic (P <.0001) and 6% less on the Private Hospitalist (P = .02) services compared with Community Physicians. The length of stay of Academic Hospitalists was 13% shorter than that of Private Hospitalists (P = .002); differences in costs between hospitalist groups were not statistically significant. Differences in in-hospital and 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission rates among the 3 physician groups were also not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The impact on patient outcomes and resource utilization may vary with the hospitalist model used. Future studies should examine the specific organizational characteristics of hospitalists that contribute to improved patient care and resource utilization.

Adult↗

Trends in blood culture contamination: a College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks study of 356 institutions.

CONTEXT: Blood culture contamination extends hospital stays and increases the cost of care. OBJECTIVES: To measure blood culture contamination rates in a large number of institutions over time and to elucidate practice patterns and demographic factors associated with sustained reduction in contamination rates. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study of 356 clinical laboratories that provided quarterly data about blood culture results, using a uniform definition of contamination. Mixed linear model analysis of the 1999 through 2003 data set. RESULTS: Blood culture contamination was significantly higher in institutions that used nonlaboratory personnel to collect blood (P = .03) and significantly lower in facilities that used a dedicated phlebotomy team (P < .001). Higher volume of blood collection was significantly associated with lower contamination rates (P < .001). Continued participation in the Q-Tracks monitoring program was associated with significant and progressive reduction in contamination rates. By the fifth year of participation, the median institution had reduced its blood culture contamination rate by 0.67% (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Institutions that use decentralized patient-centered personnel rather than dedicated phlebotomy teams to collect blood cultures experience significantly higher contamination rates. Long-term monitoring of contamination is associated with sustained improvement in performance.

Adult↗

Staffing benchmarks for clinical laboratories: a College of American Pathologists Q-probes study of staffing at 151 institutions.

CONTEXT: Inadequate staffing of clinical laboratories may compromise quality and throughput, whereas excess staff unnecessarily increases the cost of testing. OBJECTIVES: To measure productivity of technical staff and management span of control in a large number of laboratories and to determine factors associated with favorable staffing ratios. DESIGN: A total of 151 clinical laboratories provided information about technical and management staffing and output (workload) for 4 laboratory sections: anatomic pathology, chemistry/hematology/immunology, microbiology, and transfusion medicine. RESULTS: For each laboratory section, there was wide variation in labor productivity (output per nonmanagement full-time equivalent) and in management span of control (nonmanagement full-time equivalent per manager). Productivity ratios for the 10th- and 90th-percentile laboratories varied more than 3-fold. Except in histology, laboratory sections with higher test volumes had higher labor productivity (P < .001 for cytology, chemistry/hematology, and transfusion medicine; P = .003 for microbiology). Even within peer groups composed of sections with similar volume, there was wide variation in labor productivity. A number of variables other than test volume were associated with labor productivity and management span of control. Staffing ratios for each laboratory section and for sections of different sizes are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Despite standardization of testing methods in the clinical laboratory industry, there is wide variation in staffing level among institutions. This variation suggests opportunities to improve staff productivity in many facilities.

Benchmarking↗

Identification errors in pathology and laboratory medicine.

Identification errors involve misidentification of a patient or a specimen. Either has the potential to cause patients harm. Identification errors can occur during any part of the test cycle; however, most occur in the preanalytic phase. Patient identification errors in transfusion medicine occur in 0.05% of specimens; for general laboratory specimens the rate is much higher, around 1%. Anatomic pathology, which involves multiple specimen transfers and hand-offs, may have the highest identification error rate. Certain unavoidable cognitive failures lead to identification errors. Technology, ranging from bar-coded specimen labels to radio frequency identification tags, can be incorporated into protective systems that have the potential to detect and correct human error and reduce the frequency with which patients and specimens are misidentified.

Humans↗

Heparin monitoring and patient safety: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 3431 patients at 140 institutions.

CONTEXT: Appropriate laboratory monitoring of unfractionated heparin therapy promotes effective anticoagulation while minimizing hemorrhagic complications. OBJECTIVES: To measure heparin therapy monitoring in a "real-world" setting and to assess the degree of anticoagulation achieved. DESIGN: One hundred forty institutions abstracted laboratory and pharmacy data from up to 30 inpatients receiving standard-dose unfractionated heparin therapy for 72 hours. Institutions also reported their therapeutic ranges and described heparin prescribing and monitoring policies. RESULTS: Activated partial thromboplastin times or anti-factor Xa levels were measured at least once within the first 12 hours of administration for 95% of 3431 heparinized inpatients. Eighty-seven percent of patients had a platelet count performed within 72 hours of heparin administration. Seventy-eight percent of heparinized inpatients achieved therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours, but more than one third of patients entered the supratherapeutic range on at least 2 occasions during the first 72 hours. We found moderate variation in performance among the 140 institutions participating in the study, with more consistency in monitoring patients but less consistency in achieving therapeutic levels of anticoagulation. In one fourth of hospitals, more than half of the heparinized patients entered the supratherapeutic range on 2 or more occasions during the first 72 hours of therapy. None of 20 institutional practices we examined were meaningfully associated with more thorough monitoring of patients or with a higher percentage of patients achieving therapeutic anticoagulation. There was moderately wide variation in therapeutic ranges among the 140 sites. CONCLUSIONS: The prevention of heparin over-anticoagulation represents an important opportunity for improving patient safety in a significant number of institutions.

Anticoagulants↗

Productivity of Veterans Health Administration laboratories: a College of American Pathologists Laboratory Management Index Program (LMIP) study.

CONTEXT: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) operates the largest integrated laboratory network in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the unique characteristics of VA laboratories impact efficiency of operations, we compared the productivity of VA and non-VA facilities. DESIGN: Financial and activity data were prospectively collected from 124 VA and 131 non-VA laboratories enrolled in the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Management Index Program (LMIP) during 2002. In addition, secular trends in 5 productivity ratios were calculated for VA and non-VA laboratories enrolled in LMIP from 1997 through 2002. RESULTS: Veterans Health Administration and non-VA facilities did not differ significantly in size. Inpatients accounted for a lower percentage of testing at VA facilities than non-VA facilities (21.7% vs 37.3%; P <.001). Technical staff at the median VA facility were paid more than at non-VA facilities (28.11/h dollars vs 22.60/h dollars, salaries plus benefits; P <.001), VA laboratories employed a smaller percentage of nontechnical staff (30.0% vs 41.9%; P <.001), and workers at VA laboratories worked less time per hour paid (85.5% vs 88.5%; P <.001). However, labor productivity was significantly higher at VA than at non-VA facilities (30 448 test results/total full-time equivalent (FTE)/y vs 19 260 results/total FTE; P <.001), resulting in lower labor expense per on-site test at VA sites than at non-VA sites (1.79 dollars/result vs 2.08 dollars/result; P <.001). Veterans Health Administration laboratories paid less per test for consumables (P =.003), depreciation, and maintenance than their non-VA counterparts (all P <.001), resulting in lower overall cost per on-site test result (2.64 dollars vs 3.40 dollars; P <.001). Cost per referred (sent-out) test did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Analysis of 6-year trends showed significant increases in both VA (P <.001) and non-VA (P =.02) labor productivity (on-site tests/total FTE). Expenses at VA laboratories for labor per test, consumables per test, overall expense per test, and overall laboratory expense per discharge decreased significantly during the 6-year period (P <.001), while in non-VA facilities the corresponding ratios showed no significant change. CONCLUSIONS: Overall productivity of VA laboratories is superior to that of non-VA facilities enrolled in LMIP. The principal advantages enjoyed by the VA are higher-than-average labor productivity (tests/FTE) and lower-than-average consumable expenses.

Efficiency, Organizational↗

Q-tracks: a College of American Pathologists program of continuous laboratory monitoring and longitudinal tracking.

CONTEXT: Continuous monitoring of key laboratory indicators of quality by hundreds of laboratories in a standardized measurement program affords an opportunity to document the influence of longitudinal tracking on performance improvement by participants focused on that outcome. OBJECTIVE: To describe the results of the first 2 years of participation in a unique continuous performance assessment program for pathology and laboratory medicine. DESIGN: Participants in any of 6 modules in the 1999 and 2000 College of American Pathologists (CAP) Q-Tracks program collected data according to defined methods and sampling intervals on standardized input forms. Data were submitted quarterly to CAP for statistical analysis. Interinstitutional comparison reports returned in 6 weeks provided each laboratory with its performance profile of key indicators and its percentile ranking compared with all participants in that quarter. This also included longitudinal comparisons of performance during previous cumulative quarters. Control charts graphically displayed data with flags identifying performance points that were out of statistical control. SETTING: Hospital-based laboratories in the United States (98%), Canada, and Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Voluntary subscriber laboratories in the CAP Q-Tracks performance measurement program: roughly 70% from hospitals of 300 occupied beds or fewer, 65% from private, nonprofit institutions, slightly more than half located in cities, one third from teaching hospitals, and 20% with pathology residency training programs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Each module measured several major and additional minor quality indicators and unbenchmarked individualized data for internal use. RESULTS: Participants in 4 of 6 Q-Tracks continuous monitors demonstrated statistically significant performance improvement trends in 1999 and 2000, which were most marked for laboratories that continued participation throughout both years. These monitors were wristband patient identification, laboratory specimen acceptability, blood product wastage, and intraoperative frozen section consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Key continuous indicators chosen on the basis of a decade's experience in the CAP Q-Probes quality improvement program are useful measurement and benchmarking tools for laboratories to improve performance. In general, measures in which there is a broad range of demonstrable performance initially are most optimal for subsequent improvement using continuous monitoring. These studies have shown that quality is not static, but rather is a moving benchmark of performance as seen in the redefinition of benchmarks over time by participants in the first 2 years of the CAP Q-Tracks program.

Accreditation↗