Cargando…
Risk analysis and assessment based on Sigma metrics and intended use
INTRODUCTION: In order to ensure the quality in clinical laboratories and meet the low risk requirements of patients and clinicians, a risk analysis and assessment model based on Sigma metrics and intended use was constructed, based on which differential sigma performance (σ) expectations of 42 anal...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039164/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30022882 http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2018.020707 |
_version_ | 1783338631810777088 |
---|---|
author | Xia, Yong Xue, Hao Yan, Cunliang Li, Bowen Zhang, ShuQiong Li, Mingyang Ji, Ling |
author_facet | Xia, Yong Xue, Hao Yan, Cunliang Li, Bowen Zhang, ShuQiong Li, Mingyang Ji, Ling |
author_sort | Xia, Yong |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: In order to ensure the quality in clinical laboratories and meet the low risk requirements of patients and clinicians, a risk analysis and assessment model based on Sigma metrics and intended use was constructed, based on which differential sigma performance (σ) expectations of 42 analytes were developed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Failure mode and effects analysis was applied to produce an analytic risk rating based on three factors, each test of which was graded as follows: 1) Sigma metrics; 2) the severity of harm; 3) intended use. By multiplying the score of Sigma metrics by the score of severity of harm by the score of intended use, each was assigned a typical risk priority number (RPN), with RPN ≤ 25 rated as low risk. Low risk was defined as acceptable standards; the sigma performance expectations were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 42 analytes, tests with σ ≥ 6, 5 ≤ σ < 6, 4 ≤ σ < 5, 3 ≤ σ < 4, σ < 3 were 21, 5, 5, 6, and 5, respectively; there were 7 high-risk tests, 8 of them medium risk tests. According to the risk assessment conclusion, 13 tests had sigma performance expectations ≥ 6; 15 test items had sigma performance expectations ≥ 5, while 3 test items had sigma performance expectations ≥ 4; 11 test items had sigma performance expectations ≥ 3. CONCLUSIONS: Constructing the risk analysis and assessment model based on Sigma metrics and intended use will help clinical laboratories to identify the high-risk tests more objectively and comprehensively. Such model can also be used to establish the sigma performance expectations and meet the low risk requirements of patients and clinicians. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6039164 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60391642018-07-18 Risk analysis and assessment based on Sigma metrics and intended use Xia, Yong Xue, Hao Yan, Cunliang Li, Bowen Zhang, ShuQiong Li, Mingyang Ji, Ling Biochem Med (Zagreb) Original Papers INTRODUCTION: In order to ensure the quality in clinical laboratories and meet the low risk requirements of patients and clinicians, a risk analysis and assessment model based on Sigma metrics and intended use was constructed, based on which differential sigma performance (σ) expectations of 42 analytes were developed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Failure mode and effects analysis was applied to produce an analytic risk rating based on three factors, each test of which was graded as follows: 1) Sigma metrics; 2) the severity of harm; 3) intended use. By multiplying the score of Sigma metrics by the score of severity of harm by the score of intended use, each was assigned a typical risk priority number (RPN), with RPN ≤ 25 rated as low risk. Low risk was defined as acceptable standards; the sigma performance expectations were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 42 analytes, tests with σ ≥ 6, 5 ≤ σ < 6, 4 ≤ σ < 5, 3 ≤ σ < 4, σ < 3 were 21, 5, 5, 6, and 5, respectively; there were 7 high-risk tests, 8 of them medium risk tests. According to the risk assessment conclusion, 13 tests had sigma performance expectations ≥ 6; 15 test items had sigma performance expectations ≥ 5, while 3 test items had sigma performance expectations ≥ 4; 11 test items had sigma performance expectations ≥ 3. CONCLUSIONS: Constructing the risk analysis and assessment model based on Sigma metrics and intended use will help clinical laboratories to identify the high-risk tests more objectively and comprehensively. Such model can also be used to establish the sigma performance expectations and meet the low risk requirements of patients and clinicians. Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2018-06-15 2018-06-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6039164/ /pubmed/30022882 http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2018.020707 Text en ©Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Papers Xia, Yong Xue, Hao Yan, Cunliang Li, Bowen Zhang, ShuQiong Li, Mingyang Ji, Ling Risk analysis and assessment based on Sigma metrics and intended use |
title | Risk analysis and assessment based on Sigma metrics and intended use |
title_full | Risk analysis and assessment based on Sigma metrics and intended use |
title_fullStr | Risk analysis and assessment based on Sigma metrics and intended use |
title_full_unstemmed | Risk analysis and assessment based on Sigma metrics and intended use |
title_short | Risk analysis and assessment based on Sigma metrics and intended use |
title_sort | risk analysis and assessment based on sigma metrics and intended use |
topic | Original Papers |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039164/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30022882 http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2018.020707 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT xiayong riskanalysisandassessmentbasedonsigmametricsandintendeduse AT xuehao riskanalysisandassessmentbasedonsigmametricsandintendeduse AT yancunliang riskanalysisandassessmentbasedonsigmametricsandintendeduse AT libowen riskanalysisandassessmentbasedonsigmametricsandintendeduse AT zhangshuqiong riskanalysisandassessmentbasedonsigmametricsandintendeduse AT limingyang riskanalysisandassessmentbasedonsigmametricsandintendeduse AT jiling riskanalysisandassessmentbasedonsigmametricsandintendeduse |