Which surrogate marker can be used to assess the effectiveness of the laboratory and its contribution to clinical outcome?

Abstract

Assessment of the effectiveness of the clinical laboratory and its contribution to outcomes is gaining increasing emphasis, as part of the overall attempts at making clinical services more transparent and accountable. Tools traditionally used in the assessment of laboratory effectiveness and efficiency have included laboratory accreditation, Q-probes, performance in quality assurance programmes and staffing and cost issues. There is, however, a need to introduce different measures that highlight the laboratory efficiency and contribution to clinical effectiveness and outcomes. Such measures should, ideally, be quantifiable and evidence-based. The use of markers of efficiency and effectiveness could be used as tools to aid this process. Such markers could include incident reporting, the appropriateness of assay repertoire, adding value to reports, the quality of comments made, provision of information on the effect of analytical and biological variation on results, cascading requests to help making diagnoses and unearthing such diagnoses. We suggest that these measures contribute towards the implementation of the clinical governance agenda in relation to the laboratory, and could be used as indicators in laboratory accreditation.