TURNAROUND TIME OF DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY RESULTS AS A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT TO PATIENT SATISFACTION: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW 

Purbosari Purbosari, Ede   Surya Darmawan

Abstract

Background: Laboratory information is increasingly recognized as a crucial factor to reduce diagnostic uncertainty and enhance quality care. Medical diagnoses and effective treatments depend on the accurate and timely reporting of laboratory test results, and the trend toward disease prevention and personalized care calls for more complex and effective tests and biomarkers. Today's clinical laboratory provides essential information for the diagnosis, monitoring, screening, prevention, early diagnosis, tailored treatment and more effective monitoring of human diseases. Response Time is an action that is carried out quickly and precisely to handle patients. While an ability for fast (responsive) service is the response time taken to the patient when the patient arrives to get a response. Response time is one indicator of service quality that affects patient satisfaction. 
The laboratory turnaround time is the starting point for the time of for receiving the sample, the time for registration, or the analytical sampling time and end point for analytical completion, the time for verification of results, the transfer of results to the time for medical record, and the time for report printing. 
Methods: In this systematic review, we searched Pubmed, Science Direct, and Scopus database published from January 2010 to March 2019. The included studies were broadly classified as reporting from healthcare/hospital and international survey. There were 21 studies that met keywords searching criteria. Then we analysed based on the content of studies, matching to our objectives 
Results: Out of 21 identified studies, we recognized 6 scholarly journals of turnaround time diagnostic laboratory results as quality improvement of medical care and medical diagnoses and that affects patient satisfaction. These studies concluded that turnaround time becomes a key element to patient safety that contributes to patient satisfaction. 
Conclusion: Turnaround time as one of quality indicator in a laboratory setting. Improvement in this parameter could give benefit to the patient and deliver service excellence. Standardized reporting method is mandatory as it will not only allow the accreditation of clinical laboratories according to the International Standard but also to assure guidance for promoting improvement processes and guaranteeing quality care to patients and patient satisfaction.

Full Text:

PDF

References

Al-Abri R, Al-Balushi A. Patient satisfaction survey as a tool

towards quality improvement. Oman Med J 2014;29(1):3–7.

Ng JHY, Luk BHK. Patient satisfaction: Concept analysis in the healthcare context. Patient Educ Couns 2018;102(4):790–6.

Wong ELY, Lui SF, Coulter A, Cheung AWL, Yam CHK, Yeoh EK, et al. Patient experiences with public hospital care: First benchmark survey in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J 2012;18(5):371–80.

Maslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 1943;50(4):370–96.

Vogus TJ, McClelland LE. When the customer is the patient: Lessons from healthcare research on patient satisfaction and service quality ratings. Hum Resour Manag Rev 2016;26(1):37–49.

Guo S, Duan Y, Liu X, Jiang Y. Three-year customer satisfaction survey in laboratory medicine in a Chinese university hospital. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56(5):755–63.

Goswami B, Singh B, Chawla R, Gupta VK, Mallika V. Turn Around Time (TAT) as a benchmark of laboratory performance. Indian J Clin Biochem 2010;25(4):376–9.

Halstead DC, Sautter RL. New Paradigm, New Opportunities: Laboratory Stewardship. Clin Microbiol Newsl 2018;40(21):175–80.

Gupta S, Kapil S, Sharma M. Improvement of laboratory turnaround time using lean methodology. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2018;31(4):295–308.

Khan M, Khalid P, Al-Said Y, Cupler E, Almorsy L, Khalifa M. Improving reports turnaround time: An essential healthcare quality dimension. Stud Health Technol Inform 2016;226(July):205–8.

Higgins J, O’Connor D, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. 2008. 81–94 p.

Zurynski Y. Writing a Systematic Literature Review : Resources for Students and Trainees. Apsu 2014;(June):1–7.

Koh YR, Kim SY, Kim IS, Son HC, Lee EY, Chang CL, et al. Customer Satisfaction Survey With Clinical Laboratory and Phlebotomy Services at a Tertiary Care Unit Level. Ann Lab Med 2014;34(5):380.

Khan K. Root cause analysis (RCA) of prolonged laboratory turnaround time in a tertiary care set up. J Clin Diagnostic Res 2014;8(4):5–8.

Rooney KD, Schilling MM. Point-of-care testing in the overcrowded emergency department - Can it make a difference? Crit Care 2014;18(1):1–7.

Shiferaw MB, Yismaw G. Magnitude of delayed turnaround time of laboratory results in Amhara Public Health Institute, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. BMC Health Serv Res 2019;2:1–6.

Kaushik N, Khangulov VS, O’Hara M, Arnaout R. Reduction in laboratory turnaround time decreases emergency room length of stay. Open Access Emerg Med 2018;Volume 10:37–45.

Ntshambiwa K, Ntabe-Jagwer W, Kefilwe C, Samuel F, Moyo S. Translating a National Laboratory Strategic Plan into action through SLMTA in a district hospital laboratory in Botswana. Afr J Lab Med 2014;3(2):1–5.

Sharma P, Patgiri D, Deb N. Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: A fundamental tool for quality and patient safety. J Med Soc 2018;32:157–9.

Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J., and Donaldson MS. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System.National Academy Press.Washington, DC. 2000. 180–181 p.

Mesfin EA, Taye B, Belay G, Ashenafi A, Girma V. Factors affecting quality of laboratory services in public and private health facilities in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J Int Fed Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;28(3):205–23.

Chawla R, Goswami B, Singh B, Chawla A, Gupta VK, Mallika V. Evaluating Laboratory Performance With Quality Indicators. Lab Med 2010;41(5):297–300.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.