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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |