1887

Chapter 45 : Benchmarking for Your Laboratory: What's Appropriate?

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

Benchmarking for Your Laboratory: What's Appropriate?, Page 1 of 2

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817695/9781555812799_Chap45-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817695/9781555812799_Chap45-2.gif

Abstract:

The general approaches needed to decide on a strategy for the laboratory are applicable to the major types of benchmarking: finances, quality, and productivity. In this chapter the assumption will be that, although there may be regulatory requirements for many activities, there is sufficient value to make the tasks worthwhile in their own right. Technical as well as medical sophistication must also be considered. With appropriate information technology- and the expertise to take advantage of it-analysis of laboratory utilization may achieve great depth. This exercise is sometimes referred to as data mining. The data needed for financial analysis will also cover productivity analysis in most cases. Thus, the comments will usually apply to both activities, although it is possible that sufficient information is available in a human resources department to make up for holes in a financial department. If both internal and external benchmarking methods are employed, the two approaches can sometimes be used as a check on each other. It is often possible to enrich the interpretation of benchmarking data by evaluating the interplay among parameters.

Citation: Winn, Jr. W. 2004. Benchmarking for Your Laboratory: What's Appropriate?, p 755-759. 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.ch45

Key Concept Ranking

Rivers
0.875
Metals
0.7539474
Fish
0.5846939
0.875
Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

/content/book/10.1128/9781555817695.chap45
1. Galloway, M.,, and L. Nadin. 2001. Benchmarking and the laboratory. J. Clin. Pathol. 54:590597.
2. Kelley, L. A.,, and B. S. Street. 1996. Seeking improvements through laboratory benchmarking. The Western North Carolina Collaborative Group. Clin. Lab. Manage. Rev. 10:244-248, 250251.
3. Lawson, N. S.,, and P. J. Howanitz. 1997. The College of American Pathologists, 1946-1996. Quality Assurance Service. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 121:10001008.
4. Wilkinson, D. S.,, and D. D. Reynolds. 2003.Using benchmarking to manage your laboratory. Clin. Leadersh.Manag. Rev. 17:58.
5. Zarbo, R. J.,, B. A. Jones,, R. C. Friedberg,, P. N. Valenstein,, S. W. Renner,, R. B. Schifman,, M. K. Walsh,, and P. J. Howanitz. 2002. Qtracks: a College of American Pathologists program of continuous laboratory monitoring and longitudinal tracking. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 126:10361044.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table 45.1

Assessing the variables in choosing the appropriate strategy for test utilization

+/−, present or absent.

Citation: Winn, Jr. W. 2004. Benchmarking for Your Laboratory: What's Appropriate?, p 755-759. 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.ch45
Generic image for table
Table 45.2

Assessing the variables in choosing a benchmarking program

It is assumed that there is a “trusting relationship” between the administrations of the laboratory and the hospital.

Citation: Winn, Jr. W. 2004. Benchmarking for Your Laboratory: What's Appropriate?, p 755-759. 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.ch45
Generic image for table
Table 45.3

Evaluation of data from benchmarking programs

Citation: Winn, Jr. W. 2004. Benchmarking for Your Laboratory: What's Appropriate?, p 755-759. 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.ch45

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