Charles S Eby, Noor Al-Hammadi, Kathy Dodds, Deepak Sunkavalli, Ann M Gronowski
{"title":"Survey of Laboratory Stewardship Governance at US Academic Medical Centers.","authors":"Charles S Eby, Noor Al-Hammadi, Kathy Dodds, Deepak Sunkavalli, Ann M Gronowski","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfae136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efforts to appropriately utilize laboratory tests have been underway for several decades. However, limited information is available regarding the status of laboratory stewardship at academic medical centers. Prior to initiating a laboratory stewardship committee, a study was initiated to gain insights from peer institutions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online REDCap survey was created and emailed to US pathology department leaders at 94 academic medical centers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Response rate was 40%. Sixty-eight percent (n = 26) of respondents indicated that they have a laboratory stewardship committee. There was variability among academic medical institutions regarding governance, committee structure and responsibilities, and assessment of laboratory stewardship committee performance. There was consensus for inclusion of: hospital administration and clinical leadership; informatics (IT) support, and a multidisciplinary clinical team combined with laboratory medicine expertise. Of the 32% (n = 12) without a committee, 4 started one but found it unsustainable, and 6 were unsuccessful at starting a program. Respondents without a current laboratory stewardship program cited lack of leadership support, insufficient management and IT resources, and unclear vision and goals as major factors. Fifty-eight percent of those without a laboratory stewardship committee predicted their hospital would establish one within the next 5 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Survey results provide insights into the status of laboratory stewardship efforts at peer institutions. Awareness of the structural and leadership components critical to successful and sustained initiatives will improve the quality and value of clinical laboratory services.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":"10 1","pages":"13-25"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Efforts to appropriately utilize laboratory tests have been underway for several decades. However, limited information is available regarding the status of laboratory stewardship at academic medical centers. Prior to initiating a laboratory stewardship committee, a study was initiated to gain insights from peer institutions.
Methods: An online REDCap survey was created and emailed to US pathology department leaders at 94 academic medical centers.
Results: Response rate was 40%. Sixty-eight percent (n = 26) of respondents indicated that they have a laboratory stewardship committee. There was variability among academic medical institutions regarding governance, committee structure and responsibilities, and assessment of laboratory stewardship committee performance. There was consensus for inclusion of: hospital administration and clinical leadership; informatics (IT) support, and a multidisciplinary clinical team combined with laboratory medicine expertise. Of the 32% (n = 12) without a committee, 4 started one but found it unsustainable, and 6 were unsuccessful at starting a program. Respondents without a current laboratory stewardship program cited lack of leadership support, insufficient management and IT resources, and unclear vision and goals as major factors. Fifty-eight percent of those without a laboratory stewardship committee predicted their hospital would establish one within the next 5 years.
Conclusions: Survey results provide insights into the status of laboratory stewardship efforts at peer institutions. Awareness of the structural and leadership components critical to successful and sustained initiatives will improve the quality and value of clinical laboratory services.