Bachner P, Howanitz P J, Lent R W
Department of Pathology, United Hospital Medical Center, Port Chester, New York.
Am J Clin Pathol. 1994 Nov;102(5):567-71. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/102.5.567.
Participants of the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes program described their quality improvement practices for clinical and anatomic pathology. In 580 institutions, the median time required for a median of 12 indicators of quality was 40 hours/month, with the number of indicators and the time spent directly dependent on bed size (P = .0001). The overwhelming majority of participants reported benefit from their quality improvement programs in terms of patient outcomes, as a management tool, and for risk management. Six indicators in clinical pathology and four indicators in anatomic pathology were used in more than 75% of laboratories, whereas an additional seven indicators in clinical pathology and five in anatomic pathology were used in more than 50% of laboratories. The authors conclude that quality improvement practices are similar among laboratories, and irrespective of increasing regulatory requirements, pathologists and senior laboratory personnel spend large amounts of time for activities that they believe improve the quality of services rendered.
美国病理学家学会Q-Probes项目的参与者描述了他们在临床病理学和解剖病理学方面的质量改进措施。在580家机构中，12项质量指标的中位数所需的中位数时间为每月40小时，指标数量和所花费的时间直接取决于床位规模（P = 0.0001）。绝大多数参与者报告称，他们的质量改进项目在患者治疗结果、作为管理工具以及风险管理方面都带来了益处。超过75%的实验室使用了临床病理学中的6项指标和解剖病理学中的4项指标，而超过50%的实验室还使用了临床病理学中的另外7项指标和解剖病理学中的5项指标。作者得出结论，各实验室的质量改进措施相似，并且尽管监管要求不断增加，但病理学家和高级实验室人员仍花费大量时间开展他们认为能提高所提供服务质量的活动。
