1887

Chapter 25 : Selection and Implementation of New Equipment and Procedures

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Ebook: Choose a downloadable PDF or ePub file. Chapter is a downloadable PDF file. File must be downloaded within 48 hours of purchase

Buy this Chapter
Digital (?) $30.00

Preview this chapter:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Selection and Implementation of New Equipment and Procedures, Page 1 of 2

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817695/9781555812799_Chap25-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817695/9781555812799_Chap25-2.gif

Abstract:

This chapter provides a list of factors used to select new laboratory equipment and procedures. It reviews the need for input on the selection of procedures and instrumentation from multidisciplinary committees, and describes the selection criteria used to evaluate laboratory equipment and the components of the decision process used to select instrumentation. The selection of new laboratory equipment frequently requires an oversight committee or laboratory advisory board or council (LAB) to provide the final approval. This is important because the final level of equipment decision making typically involves senior managers, and possibly clinicians, who may not be familiar with the technology under consideration. The distribution of an annual laboratory survey gives providers an opportunity to praise and critique laboratory services and request new procedures or assays. The survey responses returned to the laboratory, either signed or anonymous, enable the gathering of important information on the directions the laboratory should take with the services it offers. The ultimate decisions of how the laboratory operates must come from laboratorians focused on being receptive to the needs of their customers. Initially, the selection and implementation process must assess the needs of the end users, the availability of the assay in the community, the labor and operational requirements, and the overall cost associated with the implementation of an instrument.

Citation: Bankson D. 2004. Selection and Implementation of New Equipment and Procedures, p 433-445. In Garcia L, Baselski V, Burke M, Schwab D, Sewell D, Steele J, Weissfeld A, Wilkinson D, Winn W (ed), Clinical Laboratory Management. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817695.ch25

Key Concept Ranking

Hepatitis C virus
0.56014735
0.56014735
Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

Figures

Image of Figure 25.1
Figure 25.1

Memorandum: confidentiality certificate and conflict of interest statement for TEC members.

Citation: Bankson D. 2004. Selection and Implementation of New Equipment and Procedures, p 433-445. In Garcia L, Baselski V, Burke M, Schwab D, Sewell D, Steele J, Weissfeld A, Wilkinson D, Winn W (ed), Clinical Laboratory Management. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817695.ch25
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 25.2
Figure 25.2

Relationship between technology assessment and capital budgeting.

Citation: Bankson D. 2004. Selection and Implementation of New Equipment and Procedures, p 433-445. In Garcia L, Baselski V, Burke M, Schwab D, Sewell D, Steele J, Weissfeld A, Wilkinson D, Winn W (ed), Clinical Laboratory Management. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817695.ch25
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 25.3
Figure 25.3

Equipment evaluation and rating sheet.

Citation: Bankson D. 2004. Selection and Implementation of New Equipment and Procedures, p 433-445. In Garcia L, Baselski V, Burke M, Schwab D, Sewell D, Steele J, Weissfeld A, Wilkinson D, Winn W (ed), Clinical Laboratory Management. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817695.ch25
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 25.4
Figure 25.4

Instrument selection from technology assessment to active testing.

Citation: Bankson D. 2004. Selection and Implementation of New Equipment and Procedures, p 433-445. In Garcia L, Baselski V, Burke M, Schwab D, Sewell D, Steele J, Weissfeld A, Wilkinson D, Winn W (ed), Clinical Laboratory Management. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817695.ch25
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 25.5
Figure 25.5

An example of a chemistry laboratory test worksheet for comparison of cost per reportable results and total costs among three different equipment vendors.

Citation: Bankson D. 2004. Selection and Implementation of New Equipment and Procedures, p 433-445. In Garcia L, Baselski V, Burke M, Schwab D, Sewell D, Steele J, Weissfeld A, Wilkinson D, Winn W (ed), Clinical Laboratory Management. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817695.ch25
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 25.6
Figure 25.6

New procedure selection and implementation.

Citation: Bankson D. 2004. Selection and Implementation of New Equipment and Procedures, p 433-445. In Garcia L, Baselski V, Burke M, Schwab D, Sewell D, Steele J, Weissfeld A, Wilkinson D, Winn W (ed), Clinical Laboratory Management. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817695.ch25
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint

References

/content/book/10.1128/9781555817695.chap25
1. Barba, M.V. 2003. Analyzer selection and implementation. Clin. Lab. Products 32(8):34.
2. Cary, E. R.,, M. Fink,, S. L. Stokes,, V. L. Simmons,, D. A. Kaczor,, S. Harmon,, L. Quarles,, C. Escobar,, and D. J. Maier. 2000. Selection and implementation for coagulation instruments/reagents in a multiple hospital/clinic network. Blood Coagul. Fibrinolysis 11(7):599608.
3. Cook, J. 1999. Improving vendor, lab manager relationships. Advance Admin. Lab. 7(6):114118.
4. Crolla, L. J. 2002. Justifying capital expenditures in the laboratory. MLO Med. Lab. Obs. 35:3031.
5. Doyle, R. J.,, and P. I. Doyle. 1992. GainManagement. A Process of Building Teamwork, Productivity, and Profitability Throughout Your Organization. American Management Association, New York, N.Y.
6. Drucker, P. F. 1985.Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Harper Collins, New York, N.Y.
7. Fine, A. 2003. Developing an assessment process for new technologies. Healthc. Financ.Manag. 57:8497.
8. Frantz, D. 1998. Financial tools for clinical chemistry. Advance Admin. Lab. 6(7):1618.
9. Gonder, J.,, and L. D. Mell, Jr. 2002. Everything you wanted to know about automated instrument selection but were afraid to ask! Advance Med. Lab. Prof. 14(21):1720.
10. Hersher, B. 1998. Eye on integration. The glue that holds multi-departmental management together. Advance Admin. Lab. 6(7):23.
11. Johnson, K. C. 1999. Purchasing Strategy: technology travel. Make site visits both smooth and effective. Diagn. Imaging 11:125126.
12. Johnson, P. 2000. Decisions, decisions, decisions. Advance Med. Lab. Prof. 12(14):1417.
13. King, D. 2000. Surfing for refurbished equipment. Advance Med. Lab. Prof. 12(22):1922.
14. Koch, D. D.,, and T. Peters, Jr., 1999. Selection and evaluation of methods, p. 320335. In C. A. Burtis, and E. R. Ashwood (ed.), Tietz Textbook of Clinical Chemistry, 3rd ed. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa.
15. Lemery, L. D. 2002. “Just do it”: moving the box. Clin. Lab. Manag. Rev. 16(3):204205.
16. Lindner, J. 1998.Ask the experts. What should a lab expect from a rebuilt equipment supplier? Advance Admin. Lab. 6(7):11.
17. Shultz, E. K., 1999. Selection and interpretation of laboratory procedures, p. 310319. In C. A. Burtis, and E. R. Ashwood (ed.), Tietz Textbook of Clinical Chemistry, 3rd ed. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa.
18. Travers, E. M. 1996. Laboratory manager’s financial handbook. The laboratory’s importance to the financial stability of a healthcare organization. Clin. Lab. Manag. Rev. 10:5666.
19. Travers, E.M. (ed.). 1997. Clinical Laboratory Management. The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, Md.
20. Travers, E. M. 1997. Clinical Laboratory Management, p. 333374. The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, Md.
21. Travers, E. M. 1997. Clinical Laboratory Management, p. 717726. The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, Md.
22. Varnadoe, L.A. 1996.Management and Supervision: Operations, Review, and Study Guide. F. A. Davis Company, Philadelphia, Pa.
23. Watts, D.,, D. L. Finney,, and B. Louie. 1993. Integrating technology assessment into the capital budgeting process. Healthc. Financ. Manag. 47:20-24, 26, 2829.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table 25.1

Possible appointees to clinical laboratory equipment committees

The TEC conducts primary evaluation of equipment and technologies. Members are either voting or advisory depending on committee needs. One member is designated the committee chairperson.

The LAB is the final review committee, which takes the recommendations of the TEC for a final vote on the purchase of equipment or new technologies. One member is designated the committee chairperson.

Citation: Bankson D. 2004. Selection and Implementation of New Equipment and Procedures, p 433-445. In Garcia L, Baselski V, Burke M, Schwab D, Sewell D, Steele J, Weissfeld A, Wilkinson D, Winn W (ed), Clinical Laboratory Management. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817695.ch25
Generic image for table
Table 25.2

Cautions for buying previously owned equipment as an alternative to new equipment

Citation: Bankson D. 2004. Selection and Implementation of New Equipment and Procedures, p 433-445. In Garcia L, Baselski V, Burke M, Schwab D, Sewell D, Steele J, Weissfeld A, Wilkinson D, Winn W (ed), Clinical Laboratory Management. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817695.ch25

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error