静脉切开术质量指标的评价:优质患者护理的有效工具

IF 0.4 Q4 BIOLOGY Advances in Human Biology Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.4103/aihb.aihb_201_22
Aiswarya Unnithan, Subhashish Das, K. Raju
{"title":"静脉切开术质量指标的评价:优质患者护理的有效工具","authors":"Aiswarya Unnithan, Subhashish Das, K. Raju","doi":"10.4103/aihb.aihb_201_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Contrary to popular belief, phlebotomy is not just about venipuncture. Still, it is much more than that as phlebotomy is considered a natural face of any laboratory that provides vital support for complete diagnostic services. Quality in laboratory results significantly impacts the diagnosis and management of patients since about 80% of all medical decisions are based on laboratory results. Quality indicators (QIs) are known to analyse the performance of laboratories and monitoring of QIs leads to finding areas that need improvement. QIs are qualitative or quantitative information associated with an event, process or result put under observation, which can evaluate the changes over time. It is also able to verify achievement by comparing it with set criteria. Materials and Methods: A laboratory-based cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate QIs from January 2017 to date undertaken to evaluate the following quality parameters: (a) incompletely filled requisition forms (RFs), (b) wrongly labeled samples, (c) haemolysed samples, (d) clotted samples, (e) turnaround time estimation and (f) topographical errors. These indicators were captured daily and analysed monthly, and appropriate remedial steps were taken. Results: A total of 315,250 samples were received during the study period. In the pre-analytical phase, incomplete RFs 3783 (1.2%) was the poorest QI, followed by haemolysis 2522 (0.8%) samples. Conclusion: Continuous monitoring of QIs not only helps provide error-free services but also helps qualitative improvement of diagnosis services along with better patient care.","PeriodicalId":7341,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Human Biology","volume":"13 1","pages":"80 - 84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of phlebotomy quality metrics: An effective tool for quality patient care\",\"authors\":\"Aiswarya Unnithan, Subhashish Das, K. Raju\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/aihb.aihb_201_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Contrary to popular belief, phlebotomy is not just about venipuncture. Still, it is much more than that as phlebotomy is considered a natural face of any laboratory that provides vital support for complete diagnostic services. Quality in laboratory results significantly impacts the diagnosis and management of patients since about 80% of all medical decisions are based on laboratory results. Quality indicators (QIs) are known to analyse the performance of laboratories and monitoring of QIs leads to finding areas that need improvement. QIs are qualitative or quantitative information associated with an event, process or result put under observation, which can evaluate the changes over time. It is also able to verify achievement by comparing it with set criteria. Materials and Methods: A laboratory-based cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate QIs from January 2017 to date undertaken to evaluate the following quality parameters: (a) incompletely filled requisition forms (RFs), (b) wrongly labeled samples, (c) haemolysed samples, (d) clotted samples, (e) turnaround time estimation and (f) topographical errors. These indicators were captured daily and analysed monthly, and appropriate remedial steps were taken. Results: A total of 315,250 samples were received during the study period. In the pre-analytical phase, incomplete RFs 3783 (1.2%) was the poorest QI, followed by haemolysis 2522 (0.8%) samples. Conclusion: Continuous monitoring of QIs not only helps provide error-free services but also helps qualitative improvement of diagnosis services along with better patient care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Human Biology\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"80 - 84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Human Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/aihb.aihb_201_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Human Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aihb.aihb_201_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:与普遍的看法相反,静脉切开术不仅仅是静脉穿刺。然而,它远不止于此,因为静脉切开术被认为是任何为完整诊断服务提供重要支持的实验室的自然面孔。实验室结果的质量显著影响患者的诊断和管理,因为大约80%的医疗决策是基于实验室结果。众所周知,质量指标(QIs)可以分析实验室的绩效,而对质量指标的监测可以发现需要改进的领域。质量指标是与观察到的事件、过程或结果相关的定性或定量信息,可以评估随时间的变化。它还能够通过将其与设定的标准进行比较来验证成就。材料和方法:进行了一项基于实验室的横断面研究,以评估2017年1月至今的质量指标,以评估以下质量参数:(A)填写不完整的申请单(rf), (b)错误标记的样品,(c)溶血样品,(d)凝血样品,(e)周转时间估计和(f)地形误差。每天收集这些指标,每月分析,并采取适当的补救措施。结果:研究期间共收到315,250份样本。在分析前阶段,不完全RFs 3783(1.2%)是最差的QI,其次是溶血2522(0.8%)样品。结论:持续监测质量指标不仅有助于提供无差错服务,而且有助于提高诊断服务的质量,改善患者护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of phlebotomy quality metrics: An effective tool for quality patient care
Introduction: Contrary to popular belief, phlebotomy is not just about venipuncture. Still, it is much more than that as phlebotomy is considered a natural face of any laboratory that provides vital support for complete diagnostic services. Quality in laboratory results significantly impacts the diagnosis and management of patients since about 80% of all medical decisions are based on laboratory results. Quality indicators (QIs) are known to analyse the performance of laboratories and monitoring of QIs leads to finding areas that need improvement. QIs are qualitative or quantitative information associated with an event, process or result put under observation, which can evaluate the changes over time. It is also able to verify achievement by comparing it with set criteria. Materials and Methods: A laboratory-based cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate QIs from January 2017 to date undertaken to evaluate the following quality parameters: (a) incompletely filled requisition forms (RFs), (b) wrongly labeled samples, (c) haemolysed samples, (d) clotted samples, (e) turnaround time estimation and (f) topographical errors. These indicators were captured daily and analysed monthly, and appropriate remedial steps were taken. Results: A total of 315,250 samples were received during the study period. In the pre-analytical phase, incomplete RFs 3783 (1.2%) was the poorest QI, followed by haemolysis 2522 (0.8%) samples. Conclusion: Continuous monitoring of QIs not only helps provide error-free services but also helps qualitative improvement of diagnosis services along with better patient care.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Rethinking the Efficacy of Natural and Synthetic Folic Acid on Human Health and Looking into a Better Alternative Effective Programmes to Reduce Inappropriate Dispensing of Antibiotics in Community Pharmacies Especially in Developing Countries Dengue Dynamics: A Global Update Evaluation of invasive tumour front in primary and secondary oral squamous cell carcinoma – A reliable prognostic parameter Study of the cellular senescence process in human umbilical cord Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1