PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 3846619

Quality assurance. Evaluate thyself.

L F Maciorowski·E Larson·A Keane
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Quality assurance (qa) programs must be documented carefully, systematically, and completely to be of continued value. A literature review revealed that no tools had been developed to evaluate the effectiveness of qa programs. A tool was designed and tested to assess the reports of qa studies, as an initial step in establishing the benefits of qa. The tool was found to yield reproducible results and its use is recommended to others.

Explore related subjects

Hospital Bed Capacity, 500 and overNursing AuditNursing ProcessNursing Service, HospitalOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareQuality Assurance, Health CareRetrospective StudiesJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L F Maciorowski, E Larson, A Keane. 1985. Quality assurance. Evaluate thyself.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3846619/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1992

Melioidosis and safety in the clinical laboratory.

Human infection with Pseudomonas pseudomallei, the causative agent of melioidosis, typically produces subclinical disease and an asymptomatic carrier state; occasionally clinical illness, frequently with a fatal outcome, may occur. Consequently, to help protect staff from laboratory-acquired melioidosis, microbiological and biomedical laboratories must have adequate facilities for safe work procedures and laboratory staff must engage in safe work practices. Recommendations from a melioidosis-endemic, diagnostic laboratory for the prevention of laboratory-acquired infection with this bacterium are essentially Category 3 (Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens), Risk Group 3 (Australian Standards) or Biosafety Level 2 (National Institutes of Health) precautions. These include safeguards for centrifugation, prohibiting the 'sniff' test and the use of a biological safety cabinet for sputum processing, for subculture of stock strains, for preparation of antigen and for research studies but not for routine diagnostic techniques with P. pseudomallei.

Hospital Bed Capacity, 500 and over↗
PubMed1992

Non-unit-producing activities in a large microbiology laboratory.

Workload measurement systems are used as a guide for the deployment of laboratory human resources. However, many aspects of laboratory staff activities, such as education, quality assurance, and research and development, are not classified as unit-producing activities. Using daily diaries, the amount of time spent on non-unit-producing activities (NUPA) was examined in a microbiology laboratory that is comprised of four sections. Sixty-four technical staff recorded the amount of time spent on each NUPA category during a 1-month period. The average time spent on each category was calculated and comparisons for each section were made. Results showed that on average 144 minutes per day is spent on NUPA. The greatest amount of time (44 minutes) was spent on personal time (includes two 15-minute coffee breaks). Education, training, and research and development occupied 32 minutes per day and personnel, statistics, and quality assurance activities totaled 36 minutes each day. The remaining 30 minutes were divided between the categories social, idle, outside, and other. Supervisory staff spent 307 minutes per day on NUPA, whereas bench technologists and support staff spent 109 minutes per day for NUPA. Sectional results varied from 24.1% of work time for virology/immunology to 34.2% of work time for clinical bacteriology. Non-unit-producing activities as well as unit-producing activities should be considered in deploying laboratory staff.

Hospital Bed Capacity, 500 and over↗