1887

Chapter 14.1 : Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance)

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

Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), Page 1 of 2

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555818814/9781555818814_Chap14.1-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555818814/9781555818814_Chap14.1-2.gif

Abstract:

QA is a process of monitoring the functional components of a system and correcting defects when unacceptable performance is identified. Quality is characteristically assessed by specifying performance indicators and setting targets (thresholds) for acceptable proficiency. Limits may be set so that action is taken only when the number of deficiencies exceeds a specified threshold, or a limit may be defined as a sentinel event that requires review and action whenever it is encountered. The functional attributes of a QA plan are listed in Table 14.1–1 .

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

Figures

Image of Figure 14.1–1
Figure 14.1–1

Differences between QC and quality improvement QA objectives are met by continuously monitoring a process, identifying defects, and correcting them. Quality improvement objectives are met by analyzing and understanding how a process works so that adjustments can be made to prevent defects from occurring.

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 14.1–2
Figure 14.1–2

Fishbone diagram of bacterial meningitis diagnosis. A fishbone diagram displays important components of a process and their interrelationships. Examination of a process from this perspective helps demonstrate potential weaknesses and reveals how improvements in the process might be achieved.

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 14.1–3
Figure 14.1–3

Pareto chart of solitary blood cultures. On the horizontal axis, the Pareto chart displays specific categories or groupings, beginning with the most prevalent type of event and continuing with other events in descending order of prevalence. The absolute numbers in each category are shown on the left vertical axis, and cumulative distributions (from 0 to 100%) are displayed on the right vertical axis. Making a change in the most prevalent category will have the most significant impact on overall improvement. Displaying quantitative relationships between groups in this way facilitates anticipation of the most likely sources of difficulty and sets priorities for improvement.

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 14.1–4
Figure 14.1–4

Computerized trend analysis of culture results for the identification of clusters that may have epidemiologic significance (courtesy of Misys Healthcare [Sunquest Information Systems], Tucson, AZ). Analysis of positive culture results may be employed to identify clusters of related infections that might signify an infection control problem. This requires analysis of positive-culture rates over an extended period. In this example from a commercial software program, a potential cluster is flagged as a positive-culture rate for a specific species, , recovered in respiratory cultures at more than twice the running monthly baseline. Although patient identifier information has been deleted from this example for confidentiality purposes, the report includes the following information on each patient from whom this organism was recovered in culture: collection date (in chronological order), history number, name, sex, location, sample accession number, specimen type, and antimicrobial agents to which the isolate was resistant. This information can be used to detect potential outbreaks at a very early stage.

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 14.1–5
Figure 14.1–5

Example cumulative susceptibility report

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint
Image of Figure 14.1–5a
Figure 14.1–5a

Example cumulative susceptibility report

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Permissions and Reprints Request Permissions
Download as Powerpoint

References

/content/book/10.1128/9781555818814.chap14.1
1. Berwick DM. 1989. Continuous improvement as an ideal in health care. N Engl J Med 320:5356.
2. Berwick DM, Godfrey AB, Roessner J. 1991. Curing Health Care. New Strategies for Quality Improvement. A Report on the National Demonstration Project on Quality Improvement in Health Care. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
3. Kritchevsky SB, Simmons BP. 1991. Continuous quality improvement. Concepts and applications for patient care. JAMA 266:18171823.
4. Laffel G, Blumenthal D. 1989. The case for using industrial quality management science in health care organizations. JAMA 262:28692873.
5. Walton M. 1986. The Deming Management Method. Dodd, Mead & Co, New York, NY.
6. Westgard JO, Barry PL. 1989. Beyond quality assurance: committing to quality improvement. Lab Med 20:241247.
7. Batalden PB, Buchanan ED. 1989. Industrial models of quality improvement, p 133159. In Goldfield N, Nash DB (ed), Providing Quality Care. American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, PA.
8. Schifman RB. 1990. Quality assurance goals in clinical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 114:11401144.
9. Berwick DM. 1988. Measuring health care quality. Pediatr Rev 10:1116.
10. Pedler SJ, Bint AJ. 1991. Survey of users’ attitudes to their local microbiology laboratory. J Clin Pathol 44:69.
11. Pfaller MA. 1992. The microbiology laboratory, p 493507. In Wenzel RP (ed), Assessing Quality Health Care. Williams & Wilkins Co, Baltimore, MD.
12. Wenzel RP. 1990. Quality assessment. An emerging component of hospital epidemiology. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 13:197204.
13. Brook RH. 1989. Practice guidelines and practicing medicine. Are they compatible? JAMA 262:30273030.
14. Wachtel TJ, O’Sullivan P. 1990. Practice guidelines to reduce testing in the hospital. J Gen Intern Med 5:335341.
15. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. 1992. Quality assessment and improvement, p 137143. In Accreditation Manual for Hospitals, 1992. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, Chicago, IL.
16. Howanitz PJ, Walker K, Bachner P. 1991. Detection of errors in clinical laboratory reports. Am J Clin Pathol 96:431.
17. Hilborne LH, Oye RK, McArdle KE, Repinski JA, Rodgerson DO. 1989. Use of specimen turnaround time as a component of laboratory quality. A comparison of clinical expectations with laboratory performance. Am J Clin Pathol 92:613618.
18. Kassirer JP. 1989. Our stubborn quest for diagnostic certainty. A cause of excessive testing. N Engl J Med 320:14891491.
19. Braun E, Louis-Charles A, Strand C. 1988. Evaluation of clinical microbiologic culture practices and sputum mycobacterial cultures, abstr C191, p 363. Abstr Annu Meet Am Soc Microbiol 1988.
20. Schifman RB, Palmer RA. 1985. Surveillance of nosocomial infections by computer analysis of positive culture rates. J Clin Microbiol 21:493495.
21. Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Burke JP, Gardner RM, Classen DC. 1990. Therapeutic antibiotic monitoring: surveillance using a computerized expert system. Am J Med 88:4348.
22. Trenholme GM, Kaplan RL, Karakusis PH, Stine T, Fuhrer J, Landau W, Levin S. 1989. Clinical impact of rapid identification and susceptibility testing of bacterial blood culture isolates. J Clin Microbiol 27:13421345.
23. Von Seggern RL. 1987. Culture and antibiotic monitoring service in a community hospital. Am J Hosp Pharm 44:13581362.
24. Bachner P, Howanitz PJ. 1991. Q-Probes: a tool for enhancing your lab’s QA. Med Lab Obs 23:3738, 40, 42.
25. Howanitz PJ, Steindel S. 1991. Intralaboratory performance and laboratorians’ expectations for Stat turnaround times. Arch Pathol Lab Med 115:977983.
26. Evans RS, Larsen RA, Burke JP, Gardner RM, Meier FA, Jacobson JA, Conti MT, Jacobson JT, Hulse RT. 1986. Computer surveillance of hospital-acquired infections and antibiotic use. JAMA 256:10071011.
27. Laxson LB, Blaser MJ, Parkhurst SM. 1984. Surveillance for the detection of nosocomial infections and the potential for nosocomial outbreaks. Am J Infect Control 12:318324.
28. McGuckin MB, Abrutyn E. 1979. A surveillance method for early detection of nosocomial outbreaks. Am J Infect Control 7:1821.
29. Costel EE, Mitchell S, Kaiser AB. 1985. Abbreviated surveillance of nosocomial urinary tract infections: a new approach. Infect Control 6:1113.
30. Ryan KJ. 1984. The computer in microbiology: future application in test performance and reporting. Ann N Y Acad Sci 428:243250.
31. CLSI. 2014. Analysis and Presentation of Cumulative Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Data. Approved guideline M39-A4. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
32. Bartlett RC. 1985. Cost containment in microbiology. Clin Lab Med 5:761792.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table 14.1–1

Attributes of a QA plan

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Generic image for table
Table 14.1–2

Roles of personnel in quality management organization

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Generic image for table
Table 14.1–3

Examples of quality indicators for medical microbiology

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Generic image for table
Table 14.1–4

Example of results from sputum quality monitor

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Generic image for table
Table 14.1–5

Examples of indications for restricting microbiology testing

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Generic image for table
Table 14.1–6

QA issues examined by CAP interlaboratory Q-Probes program with application to microbiology in years 1989 to 1991

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Generic image for table
Table 14.1-A1

Procedures for quality assessment of urine specimen examinations

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1
Generic image for table
Table 14.1-A2

Summary of data for urine specimen examinations

Citation: Leber A. 2016. Quality Assessment and Improvement (Quality Assurance), p 14.1.1-14.1.29. In Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, Fourth Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555818814.ch14.1

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