Howanitz P J, Valenstein P N, Fine G
Department of Pathology, State University of New York, Health Science Center at Brooklyn, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000 Feb;124(2):195-202. doi: 10.5858/2000-124-0195-ECAPBA.
To survey employee competence assessment practices in departments of pathology and laboratory medicine and provide suggestions for improvement.
A 3-part study consisting of a questionnaire about current competence assessment practices, an evaluation of compliance with stated competence assessment practices using personnel records of 30 employees, and a written appraisal of competence of 5 specimen-processing staff members per institution.
A total of 522 institutions participating in the College of American Pathologists 1996 Q-Probes program.
Institutional competence assessment practices, compliance of each institution with their own practices, and determination of competence of specimen-processing personnel.
Of the participating institutions, 89.8% had a written competence plan and 98.1% reported reviewing employee competence at least yearly. General competence was reviewed by direct observations (87.5%), review of test or quality control results (77.4%), review of instrument preventive maintenance (60.0%), written testing (52.2%), and/or other methods (20.8%). In 8.6% of institutions, employees who failed competence assessment were not allowed to continue their usual work. On review of records of 14 029 employees for adherence to the laboratory's general competence plan, adherence was 89.7% for direct observations, 85.8% for review of quality control and test results, 78.0% for review of instrument records, and 74.0% for written testing. Employee failure rate ranged from 0.9% to 6.4%, depending on the competence evaluated. Adherence to an institution's plan was 90.4% for new employees, 93.1% for computer skills, 95.8% for laboratory safety, and 92.1% for continuing education. When a written competence assessment was given to 2853 specimen-processing staff members, 90.0% responded satisfactorily.
Opportunities for improvement in employee competence assessment are numerous, and we provide several specific suggestions.
调查病理学和检验医学科室员工能力评估的实践情况，并提出改进建议。
一项分为三个部分的研究，包括一份关于当前能力评估实践的问卷、利用30名员工的人事记录对既定能力评估实践的合规性进行评估，以及对每个机构的5名标本处理人员的能力进行书面评估。
共有522家机构参与了美国病理学家学会1996年的Q-Probes项目。
机构能力评估实践、各机构对自身实践的合规情况，以及标本处理人员能力的确定。
在参与调查的机构中，89.8%有书面能力计划，98.1%报告至少每年审查员工能力。通过直接观察（87.5%）、审查测试或质量控制结果（77.4%）、审查仪器预防性维护（60.0%）、书面测试（52.2%）和/或其他方法（20.8%）来审查一般能力。在8.6%的机构中，能力评估未通过的员工不被允许继续其日常工作。在审查14029名员工遵守实验室一般能力计划的记录时，直接观察的遵守率为89.7%，质量控制和测试结果审查的遵守率为85.8%，仪器记录审查的遵守率为78.0%，书面测试的遵守率为74.0%。员工不及格率在0.9%至6.4%之间，具体取决于所评估的能力。新员工对机构计划的遵守率为90.4%，计算机技能的遵守率为93.1%，实验室安全的遵守率为95.8%，继续教育的遵守率为92.1%。当对2853名标本处理人员进行书面能力评估时，90.0%的人给出了满意的答复。
员工能力评估有很多改进机会，我们提供了一些具体建议。
