A spreadsheet program measuring laboratory productivity in several ways: an application of College of American Pathology scores and other data to assess the overall economics of clinical laboratories.

A spreadsheet has been designed that measures the productivity of hospital or other clinical laboratories using several methods, one of which, used as a yardstick, is based on College of American Pathology (CAP) workload test scores with some departures from CAP conventions. In this method the CAP-assessed proportion of a laboratory's time utilised in performing pathology or other tests is compared with the time allocated to non-testing departmental activities as a group. A premise in the approach is that variation in the time allocated to these latter activities, in addition to variation in the efficiency of testing, also contributes significantly to the productivity and economics of hospital laboratories. The workload measure of productivity used in the study is referred to as total staff-paid-productivity (TSPP)--allied to paid-productivity of the CAP Manual 1991--and it is suggested that it be used together with several other result parameters to assess laboratories. However, there are two differences from CAP in the TSPP parameter: the salaries and hours of all staff whether medical, technical or scientific are included; and the professional component (time necessary for test interpretation) is also included where applicable. Necessary data include the goods and services costs, the total test-generated income, the total number of full-time staff equivalents and their hours in each unit or work group, the numbers of tests and raw CAP scores and in addition, an estimation of the professional/interpretive component of each test until the generation of a report. The method is illustrated with examples from six different departments with total staff-paid-productivities covering a wide range beyond the typical values of 65 per cent to 75 per cent. When the data for the laboratories are compared, it is observed that the various admixtures of non-testing activities are a stronger influence on differences in total staff-paid-productivity than the interpretative components of tests, although the latter vary markedly from discipline to discipline. When the interpretative components are included in workload measurements, it enables the productivity of different laboratories to be compared across disciplines. It is suggested that for laboratories to generate ongoing productivity they should be staffed at a rate that produces approximately a maximum total staff-paid-productivity of about 75 per cent.