Cargando…

Quality analysis of the clinical laboratory literature and its effectiveness on clinical quality improvement: a systematic review

Quality improvement in clinical laboratories is crucial to ensure accurate and reliable test results. With increasing awareness of the potential adverse effects of errors in laboratory practice on patient outcomes, the need for continual improvement of laboratory services cannot be overemphasized. A...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chaudhry, Ahmed Shabbir, Inata, Yu, Nakagami-Yamaguchi, Etsuko
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: the Society for Free Radical Research Japan 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10493209/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37700849
http://dx.doi.org/10.3164/jcbn.23-22
_version_ 1785104424454062080
author Chaudhry, Ahmed Shabbir
Inata, Yu
Nakagami-Yamaguchi, Etsuko
author_facet Chaudhry, Ahmed Shabbir
Inata, Yu
Nakagami-Yamaguchi, Etsuko
author_sort Chaudhry, Ahmed Shabbir
collection PubMed
description Quality improvement in clinical laboratories is crucial to ensure accurate and reliable test results. With increasing awareness of the potential adverse effects of errors in laboratory practice on patient outcomes, the need for continual improvement of laboratory services cannot be overemphasized. A literature search was conducted on PubMed and a web of science core collection between October and February 2021 to evaluate the scientific literature quality of clinical laboratory quality improvement; only peer-reviewed articles written in English that met quality improvement criteria were included. A structured template was used to extract data, and the papers were rated on a scale of 0–16 using the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS). Out of 776 studies, 726 were evaluated for clinical laboratory literature quality analysis. Studies were analyzed according to the quality improvement and control methods and interventions, such as training, education, task force, and observation. Results showed that the average score of QI-MQCS for quality improvement papers from 1981–2000 was 2.5, while from 2001–2020, it was 6.8, indicating continuous high-quality improvement in the clinical laboratory sector. However, there is still room to establish a proper system to judge the quality of clinical laboratory literature and improve accreditation programs within the sector.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10493209
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher the Society for Free Radical Research Japan
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104932092023-09-12 Quality analysis of the clinical laboratory literature and its effectiveness on clinical quality improvement: a systematic review Chaudhry, Ahmed Shabbir Inata, Yu Nakagami-Yamaguchi, Etsuko J Clin Biochem Nutr Original Article Quality improvement in clinical laboratories is crucial to ensure accurate and reliable test results. With increasing awareness of the potential adverse effects of errors in laboratory practice on patient outcomes, the need for continual improvement of laboratory services cannot be overemphasized. A literature search was conducted on PubMed and a web of science core collection between October and February 2021 to evaluate the scientific literature quality of clinical laboratory quality improvement; only peer-reviewed articles written in English that met quality improvement criteria were included. A structured template was used to extract data, and the papers were rated on a scale of 0–16 using the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS). Out of 776 studies, 726 were evaluated for clinical laboratory literature quality analysis. Studies were analyzed according to the quality improvement and control methods and interventions, such as training, education, task force, and observation. Results showed that the average score of QI-MQCS for quality improvement papers from 1981–2000 was 2.5, while from 2001–2020, it was 6.8, indicating continuous high-quality improvement in the clinical laboratory sector. However, there is still room to establish a proper system to judge the quality of clinical laboratory literature and improve accreditation programs within the sector. the Society for Free Radical Research Japan 2023-09 2023-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10493209/ /pubmed/37700849 http://dx.doi.org/10.3164/jcbn.23-22 Text en Copyright © 2023 JCBN https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ).
spellingShingle Original Article
Chaudhry, Ahmed Shabbir
Inata, Yu
Nakagami-Yamaguchi, Etsuko
Quality analysis of the clinical laboratory literature and its effectiveness on clinical quality improvement: a systematic review
title Quality analysis of the clinical laboratory literature and its effectiveness on clinical quality improvement: a systematic review
title_full Quality analysis of the clinical laboratory literature and its effectiveness on clinical quality improvement: a systematic review
title_fullStr Quality analysis of the clinical laboratory literature and its effectiveness on clinical quality improvement: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Quality analysis of the clinical laboratory literature and its effectiveness on clinical quality improvement: a systematic review
title_short Quality analysis of the clinical laboratory literature and its effectiveness on clinical quality improvement: a systematic review
title_sort quality analysis of the clinical laboratory literature and its effectiveness on clinical quality improvement: a systematic review
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10493209/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37700849
http://dx.doi.org/10.3164/jcbn.23-22
work_keys_str_mv AT chaudhryahmedshabbir qualityanalysisoftheclinicallaboratoryliteratureanditseffectivenessonclinicalqualityimprovementasystematicreview
AT inatayu qualityanalysisoftheclinicallaboratoryliteratureanditseffectivenessonclinicalqualityimprovementasystematicreview
AT nakagamiyamaguchietsuko qualityanalysisoftheclinicallaboratoryliteratureanditseffectivenessonclinicalqualityimprovementasystematicreview