Cargando…

Quality and performance indicators in Portuguese anatomical pathology laboratories: a panel validation by qualitative Delphi technique

BACKGROUND: In laboratory medicine, quality and performance indicators (QPIs) are essential tools to ensure the quality of healthcare services and patient safety. QPIs allow comparison of outcomes, favouring accountability and transparency. Internationally, there are some QPI evaluation models, but...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Paulino, Ana, Pedro, Ana Rita, Roque, Ruben, Dias, Sónia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9362786/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001726
_version_ 1784764788132282368
author Paulino, Ana
Pedro, Ana Rita
Roque, Ruben
Dias, Sónia
author_facet Paulino, Ana
Pedro, Ana Rita
Roque, Ruben
Dias, Sónia
author_sort Paulino, Ana
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In laboratory medicine, quality and performance indicators (QPIs) are essential tools to ensure the quality of healthcare services and patient safety. QPIs allow comparison of outcomes, favouring accountability and transparency. Internationally, there are some QPI evaluation models, but the fact that they are paid limits their dissemination in smaller/poorer laboratories. In Portugal, each laboratory defines its own QPIs, with no uniformity between institutions. The development of a free QPI panel suitable for anatomical pathology laboratories (APLs) would allow for quality assessment and improvement. OBJECTIVE: To develop a consensual and validated QPI panel suitable for Portuguese APLs. METHODS: The study was developed in two stages. First, a bibliographic review was carried out, selecting the adequate QPIs. Afterwards, these QPIs were evaluated by experts through the Delphi method, where they could also suggest other pertinent QPIs. RESULTS: By the end of the Delphi method, there was a consensus on 64 QPIs (31 for ‘structure’, 30 for ‘process’ and 3 for ‘result’). The consensual QPIs covered all phases of the total test cycle. The lack of specific anatomical pathology QPIs in the bibliography was noticeable. There was greater consensus on ‘process’ and ‘result’ QPIs than on ‘structure’. This was supported by the bibliography, where the first ones were more valued. Nevertheless, it is important to monitor all the main laboratory processes, prioritising the evaluation of QPIs with greater impact on healthcare quality and patient safety. These results should allow APLs to identify the causes behind poor performance and improve their services. CONCLUSIONS: This panel is a valuable tool for APLs, contributing to quality awareness. It can be the first step towards the development of a free benchmarking quality programme in Portugal, encouraging competitiveness and cost-efficiency.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9362786
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93627862022-08-22 Quality and performance indicators in Portuguese anatomical pathology laboratories: a panel validation by qualitative Delphi technique Paulino, Ana Pedro, Ana Rita Roque, Ruben Dias, Sónia BMJ Open Qual Original Research BACKGROUND: In laboratory medicine, quality and performance indicators (QPIs) are essential tools to ensure the quality of healthcare services and patient safety. QPIs allow comparison of outcomes, favouring accountability and transparency. Internationally, there are some QPI evaluation models, but the fact that they are paid limits their dissemination in smaller/poorer laboratories. In Portugal, each laboratory defines its own QPIs, with no uniformity between institutions. The development of a free QPI panel suitable for anatomical pathology laboratories (APLs) would allow for quality assessment and improvement. OBJECTIVE: To develop a consensual and validated QPI panel suitable for Portuguese APLs. METHODS: The study was developed in two stages. First, a bibliographic review was carried out, selecting the adequate QPIs. Afterwards, these QPIs were evaluated by experts through the Delphi method, where they could also suggest other pertinent QPIs. RESULTS: By the end of the Delphi method, there was a consensus on 64 QPIs (31 for ‘structure’, 30 for ‘process’ and 3 for ‘result’). The consensual QPIs covered all phases of the total test cycle. The lack of specific anatomical pathology QPIs in the bibliography was noticeable. There was greater consensus on ‘process’ and ‘result’ QPIs than on ‘structure’. This was supported by the bibliography, where the first ones were more valued. Nevertheless, it is important to monitor all the main laboratory processes, prioritising the evaluation of QPIs with greater impact on healthcare quality and patient safety. These results should allow APLs to identify the causes behind poor performance and improve their services. CONCLUSIONS: This panel is a valuable tool for APLs, contributing to quality awareness. It can be the first step towards the development of a free benchmarking quality programme in Portugal, encouraging competitiveness and cost-efficiency. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-08-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9362786/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001726 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research
Paulino, Ana
Pedro, Ana Rita
Roque, Ruben
Dias, Sónia
Quality and performance indicators in Portuguese anatomical pathology laboratories: a panel validation by qualitative Delphi technique
title Quality and performance indicators in Portuguese anatomical pathology laboratories: a panel validation by qualitative Delphi technique
title_full Quality and performance indicators in Portuguese anatomical pathology laboratories: a panel validation by qualitative Delphi technique
title_fullStr Quality and performance indicators in Portuguese anatomical pathology laboratories: a panel validation by qualitative Delphi technique
title_full_unstemmed Quality and performance indicators in Portuguese anatomical pathology laboratories: a panel validation by qualitative Delphi technique
title_short Quality and performance indicators in Portuguese anatomical pathology laboratories: a panel validation by qualitative Delphi technique
title_sort quality and performance indicators in portuguese anatomical pathology laboratories: a panel validation by qualitative delphi technique
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9362786/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001726
work_keys_str_mv AT paulinoana qualityandperformanceindicatorsinportugueseanatomicalpathologylaboratoriesapanelvalidationbyqualitativedelphitechnique
AT pedroanarita qualityandperformanceindicatorsinportugueseanatomicalpathologylaboratoriesapanelvalidationbyqualitativedelphitechnique
AT roqueruben qualityandperformanceindicatorsinportugueseanatomicalpathologylaboratoriesapanelvalidationbyqualitativedelphitechnique
AT diassonia qualityandperformanceindicatorsinportugueseanatomicalpathologylaboratoriesapanelvalidationbyqualitativedelphitechnique