GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 1
2005 IQLM Conference2005 IQLM Conference
IQLM Network:Meeting Goals –Meeting
Needs
Michael A Noble MD FRCPC
Networks Committee
April 29, 2005
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 2
Presentation ObjectivesPresentation Objectives
• Stating the goals of the network committee
• Characterizing the IQLM-Network project
• A Snap-shot View of Quality Management in America’s Hospital Clinical Laboratories
• Conclusions
• Acknowledgements
• IQLM Network –Next Steps
• Stating the goals of the network committee
• Characterizing the IQLM-Network project
• A Snap-shot View of Quality Management in America’s Hospital Clinical Laboratories
• Conclusions
• Acknowledgements
• IQLM Network –Next Steps
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 3
Defining Network Objectives (2003)Defining Network Objectives (2003)• Identify a partner
• Develop laboratory networks
• Complete pilot study to determine potential of web based formatted survey
• Collect information on laboratory quality practice and services
• Determine respondents willing to participate in ongoing survey
• Track trends in a volunteer group of laboratories
• Develop process to obtain information on quality
• Identify a partner
• Develop laboratory networks
• Complete pilot study to determine potential of web based formatted survey
• Collect information on laboratory quality practice and services
• Determine respondents willing to participate in ongoing survey
• Track trends in a volunteer group of laboratories
• Develop process to obtain information on quality
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 4
Meeting the ObjectivesMeeting the Objectives
• In the first meeting of the Networks Committee (Atlanta 2003), three organizations offered to consider developing a project.
• Following discussion, it was agreed that the Clinical Laboratory Management Association was in the best position to develop the initial pilot project.
• In the first meeting of the Networks Committee (Atlanta 2003), three organizations offered to consider developing a project.
• Following discussion, it was agreed that the Clinical Laboratory Management Association was in the best position to develop the initial pilot project.
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 5
Developing the Pilot ProjectDeveloping the Pilot Project
• A CLMA study with assistance and support of the IQLM Networks Committee.
Define the subjectDevelop the survey questionnaire designPre-test and validate the questionnaire with two independent subgroupsAdvertise the questionnaireLet the questionnaire Capture and analyze the dataPrepare for presentation
• A CLMA study with assistance and support of the IQLM Networks Committee.
Define the subjectDevelop the survey questionnaire designPre-test and validate the questionnaire with two independent subgroupsAdvertise the questionnaireLet the questionnaire Capture and analyze the dataPrepare for presentation
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 6
Survey ObjectivesSurvey Objectives
To collect information on quality management activities in clinical laboratories
Note that survey information was the product of two data formats:
• Pre-defined specific answers
• Invited open format comment
To collect information on quality management activities in clinical laboratories
Note that survey information was the product of two data formats:
• Pre-defined specific answers
• Invited open format comment
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 7
Survey Respondents Survey Respondents
• Targeted to U.S. hospital-based laboratories, including integrated delivery systems, university hospitals, government hospitals and independent labs owned by hospitals.
• One respondent per institution – Most senior manager invited to participate; given option to delegate to most appropriate person
• Targeted to U.S. hospital-based laboratories, including integrated delivery systems, university hospitals, government hospitals and independent labs owned by hospitals.
• One respondent per institution – Most senior manager invited to participate; given option to delegate to most appropriate person
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 8
Survey ResponseSurvey Response
• Distribution pool 2,301
• Response pool 572 – 25%
• Distribution pool 2,301
• Response pool 572 – 25%
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 9
Respondent DemographicsRespondent Demographics
Distribution By Title
1%
3%
12%
35%
43%
1%
2%
13%
33%
45%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Medical Director
Qualitiy Specialist
Supervisor
Lab Manager
Admin/Director
CLMA Membership Responders
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 10
Respondent DemographicsRespondent Demographics
Distribution By Facility
3%
7%
5%
20%
65%
2%
10%
10%
21%
57%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Other
Govt
University
Integrated Delivery Network
Independent Hospitals
CLMA Membership Responders
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 11
Respondent DemographicsRespondent DemographicsGeographic Distribution
13%
16%
33%
13%
25%
14%
19%
33%
12%
22%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Southwest
Northwest
Midwest
Southeast
Northeast
CLMA Membership Responders
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 12
Survey ResponseSurvey Response
• Over 25% of eligible CLMA members responded to the survey.
• The respondents represent a nationwide sample and distribution of laboratories that correlate closely with the distribution of CLMA member laboratories.
• Over 25% of eligible CLMA members responded to the survey.
• The respondents represent a nationwide sample and distribution of laboratories that correlate closely with the distribution of CLMA member laboratories.
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 13
We consider this survey a success.
PartnershipInformation Gathering Instrument
Snap-shot of Quality Activities
We consider this survey a success.
PartnershipInformation Gathering Instrument
Snap-shot of Quality Activities
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 14
A Snap-shot View of Quality Management in America’s Hospital Clinical Laboratories
A Snap-shot View of Quality Management in America’s Hospital Clinical Laboratories
Julie Gayken, MT (ASCP) Administrative Director of Laboratory
ServicesRegions Hospital – St. Paul, MinnesotaChair – CLMA Quality Advisory CouncilMember – IQLM Networks Work Group
CLMA Quality Management Pilot
Survey
November 2004
CLMA Quality Management Pilot
Survey
November 2004
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 15
Presentation ObjectivesPresentation Objectives
• Quality pilot survey objectives
• Summary of pilot survey results
• Conclusion from pilot survey results
• Quality pilot survey objectives
• Summary of pilot survey results
• Conclusion from pilot survey results
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 16
Quality Pilot Survey ObjectivesQuality Pilot Survey Objectives
1. Collect information on quality management activities
2. Identify types of events that lead to investigations and process used
3. Determine indicators being used today and rank usage (poster)
4. Determine steps used in patient ID process as example for benchmarking (poster)
5. Gather list of safety/quality initiatives that have resulted in error reduction (poster)
6. Determine topics for future surveys and benchmarking (poster)
7. Gather list of individuals for a future targeted network
1. Collect information on quality management activities
2. Identify types of events that lead to investigations and process used
3. Determine indicators being used today and rank usage (poster)
4. Determine steps used in patient ID process as example for benchmarking (poster)
5. Gather list of safety/quality initiatives that have resulted in error reduction (poster)
6. Determine topics for future surveys and benchmarking (poster)
7. Gather list of individuals for a future targeted network
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 17
Collect Information on Quality
Management Activities
Collect Information on Quality
Management Activities
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 18
What Parts of Quality Management are Largely Implemented?What Parts of Quality Management are Largely Implemented?
99.7
97.7
96.5
91.1
86.7
85.8
84.8
77.4
76.2
75
74.8
73.6
65
61.5
61.2
54.2
51.9
50.3
45.1
45
44.1
35.7
14.2
9.8
4.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Proficiency testing program
External assessments
Instrument and reagent QC program
Validation for test procedures
Laboratory records and information
Staff competencies
Written quality policy
Staff Training
CQI process
Program for procedural non-conformances
Customer Satisfaction Program
Review of quality management system
Quality planning process
Quality manager
Document control system for formal process
Environmental control program
Referral lab selection
Quality audit program and scheduled audits
Preventive action process
Pro-active preventive process
Quality indicators
Suppliers selection and evaluation
Guidelines for physicians for testing
Institutional rules for routine tests
Rules that limit esoteric tests
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 19
99.7
97.7
96.5
91.1
86.7
85.8
84.8
77.4
76.2
75
74.8
73.6
65
61.5
61.2
54.2
51.9
50.3
45.1
45
44.1
35.7
14.2
9.8
4.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Proficiency testing program
External assessments
Instrument and reagent QC program
Validation for test procedures
Laboratory records and information
Staff competencies
Written quality policy
Staff Training
CQI process
Program for procedural non-conformances
Customer Satisfaction Program
Review of quality management system
Quality planning process
Quality manager
Document control system for formal process
Environmental control program
Referral lab selection
Quality audit program and scheduled audits
Preventive action process
Pro-active preventive process
Quality indicators
Suppliers selection and evaluation
Guidelines for physicians for testing
Institutional rules for routine tests
Rules that limit esoteric tests
What Parts of Quality Management are Largely Implemented? (Top 5)What Parts of Quality Management are Largely Implemented? (Top 5)
99.7
98
97
91
87
80 85 90 95 100 105
Proficiency testing program
External assessments
Instrument and reagent QC program
Validation for test procedures
Laboratory records and information
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 20
99.7
97.7
96.5
91.1
86.7
85.8
84.8
77.4
76.2
75
74.8
73.6
65
61.5
61.2
54.2
51.9
50.3
45.1
45
44.1
35.7
14
10
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Proficiency testing program
External assessments
Instrument and reagent QC program
Validation for test procedures
Laboratory records and information
Staff competencies
Written quality policy
Staff Training
CQI process
Program for procedural non-conformances
Customer Satisfaction Program
Review of quality management system
Quality planning process
Quality manager
Document control system for formal process
Environmental control program
Referral lab selection
Quality audit program and scheduled audits
Preventive action process
Pro-active preventive process
Quality indicators
Suppliers selection and evaluation
Guidelines for physicians for testing
Institutional rules for routine tests
Rules that limit esoteric tests
What Parts of Quality Management are Largely Implemented? (Last 5)What Parts of Quality Management are Largely Implemented? (Last 5)
Suppliers of essential products and services
44
36
14
10
5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Quality indicators
Guidelines for physicians for testing
Institutional rules for routine test
Rules that limit esoteric test
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 21
Quality Management ActivitiesKey FindingsQuality Management ActivitiesKey Findings
• Most components recommended by guidelines are implemented to some degree
• Lowest implementation percentage for test utilization components:
– Develop clinical guidelines for physician use on appropriate testing
– Institutional rules for frequency of tests
• Most components recommended by guidelines are implemented to some degree
• Lowest implementation percentage for test utilization components:
– Develop clinical guidelines for physician use on appropriate testing
– Institutional rules for frequency of tests
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 22
Quality Management Assessments
Quality Management Assessments
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 23
Which Components of Quality Assessment Do You Conduct?Which Components of Quality Assessment Do You Conduct?
Component Percent
Structured review of incident reportsStructured review of incident reports 9393
Structured review of adverse events Structured review of adverse events (harm to patients related to medical care)(harm to patients related to medical care) 8383
Patient satisfaction surveyPatient satisfaction survey 8282
Employee satisfaction surveyEmployee satisfaction survey 7575
Physician/clinician satisfaction surveyPhysician/clinician satisfaction survey 7474
Structured review of management reports/metricsStructured review of management reports/metrics 7272
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 24
Analysis of Quality Assessment ComponentsAnalysis of Quality Assessment Components
Components Frequency % Code/Trend % Intervention Guidelines
Adverse eventsAdverse events As neededAs needed 8484 6565
Management Management reportsreports MonthlyMonthly 8989 5959
Incident reportsIncident reports As neededAs needed 8585 5454
Employee Employee satisfactionsatisfaction AnnualAnnual 9090 5151
Patient satisfactionPatient satisfaction MonthlyMonthly 9292 4141
Nursing surveysNursing surveys As neededAs needed 7171 3030
Physician/clinician Physician/clinician satisfactionsatisfaction AnnualAnnual 7474 2323
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 25
Analysis of Quality Assessment ComponentsAnalysis of Quality Assessment Components
Components Frequency % Code/Trend % Intervention Guidelines
Adverse eventsAdverse events As neededAs needed 84 6565
Management Management reportsreports MonthlyMonthly 89 5959
Incident reportsIncident reports As neededAs needed 85 5454
Employee Employee satisfactionsatisfaction AnnualAnnual 90 5151
Patient satisfactionPatient satisfaction MonthlyMonthly 92 4141
Nursing surveysNursing surveys As neededAs needed 71 3030
Physician/clinician Physician/clinician satisfactionsatisfaction AnnualAnnual 74 2323
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 26
Analysis of Quality Assessment ComponentsAnalysis of Quality Assessment Components
Components Frequency % Code/Trend % Intervention Guidelines
Adverse eventsAdverse events As neededAs needed 8484 65
Management Management reportsreports MonthlyMonthly 8989 59
Incident reportsIncident reports As neededAs needed 8585 54
Employee Employee satisfactionsatisfaction AnnualAnnual 9090 51
Patient satisfactionPatient satisfaction MonthlyMonthly 9292 41
Nursing surveysNursing surveys As neededAs needed 7171 30
Physician/clinician Physician/clinician satisfactionsatisfaction AnnualAnnual 7474 23
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 27
Quality Assessment Key FindingsQuality Assessment Key Findings
• >70% conduct, code and trend quality reports and surveys
• <65% have guidelines that dictate when intervention (i.e. contact or change) is needed
• >70% conduct, code and trend quality reports and surveys
• <65% have guidelines that dictate when intervention (i.e. contact or change) is needed
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 28
Identify Types of Events that Lead
to In-Depth Investigations and
Processes Used
Identify Types of Events that Lead
to In-Depth Investigations and
Processes Used
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 29
Which Laboratory Events Lead to Full (In-depth) Investigations?Which Laboratory Events Lead to Full (In-depth) Investigations?
80
90
100
Adverse Event Incident Report PhysicianComplaint
PatientComplaint
EmployeeReport
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 30
How are Full Adverse EventInvestigations Performed?How are Full Adverse EventInvestigations Performed?
Information used
Lab records – 99%
Medical record – 93%
Nursing interviews – 90%
Physician interviews – 89%
Who chairs or leads investigation
Tools used
Structured process for review and corrective
action
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 31
How are Full Adverse EventInvestigations Performed?How are Full Adverse EventInvestigations Performed?
Information used
Who chairs or leads investigation
Risk management director – 53%
Quality manager/specialist – 20%
Laboratory administrator/ manager – 19%
Tools used
Structured process for review and corrective
action
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 32
How are Full Adverse EventInvestigations Performed?How are Full Adverse EventInvestigations Performed?
Information used
Who chairs or leads investigation
Tools used
Root cause analysis – 92%
Process improvement (eg: PDSA) – 66%
Failure mode and effects analysis – 59%
Structured process for review and corrective
action
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 33
How are Full Adverse EventInvestigations Performed?How are Full Adverse EventInvestigations Performed?
Information used
Who chairs or leads investigation
Tools used
Structured process for review and corrective
actionYes – 86%
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 34
Adverse Events – In-Depth InvestigationsKey Findings
Adverse Events – In-Depth InvestigationsKey Findings
• 53% state risk management director leads review
• Reviews conducted on lab, patient, nursing, physician information
• 92% use root cause analysis process
• 14% do not use a structured process for review and corrective action
• 53% state risk management director leads review
• Reviews conducted on lab, patient, nursing, physician information
• 92% use root cause analysis process
• 14% do not use a structured process for review and corrective action
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 35
Which Laboratory Events Lead to Full (In-depth) Investigations?Which Laboratory Events Lead to Full (In-depth) Investigations?
80
90
100
Adverse Event Incident Report PhysicianComplaint
PatientComplaint
EmployeeReport
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 36
What Steps are Used in Investigations? What Steps are Used in Investigations?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
ManagementReview
(situation)
Data Review Root CauseAnalysis
ManagementReview
(findings)
Corrective andor Preventive
Action
Other (ServiceRecovery
Action)
Incident Report Physician Complaint Patient Complaint Employee Report
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 37
In-depth Investigations Key FindingsIn-depth Investigations Key Findings
Incident Reports, Physician Complaints, Patient Complaints, Employee Reports
• Laboratories utilize the same processes for investigating various quality reports and
complaints
• <60% of labs use root cause analysis for investigation
Incident Reports, Physician Complaints, Patient Complaints, Employee Reports
• Laboratories utilize the same processes for investigating various quality reports and
complaints
• <60% of labs use root cause analysis for investigation
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 38
Determine Indicators Being Used Today and Rank Usage
Determine Indicators Being Used Today and Rank Usage
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 39
Indicators TrackedIndicators Tracked
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 40
Most Common Indicators TrackedMost Common Indicators Tracked
40
60
80
100
1 Proficiencytesting/
performanceevaluation
2 Qualitycontrol
3 Competencyof testingpersonnel
4 Resultavailability/ turn
around time
5 Patientidentif ication
and itsaccuracy
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 41
Least CommonIndicators TrackedLeast CommonIndicators Tracked
0
10
20
30
40
50
1 Testutilization forbest patient
care
2 Cost /benefit
assessments
3 Patientconsent/shared
decisionmaking
4 Clinical andpreventive
action
5 Resultinterpretationby clinician/
patient
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 42
Indicators TrackedKey FindingsIndicators TrackedKey Findings
• All 30 total testing process indicators are being tracked to some degree
• The top 5 indicators most commonly tracked are required by regulation or patient safety goals
• The 5 indicators least tracked are in the areas of appropriateness of testing for best care
• Pre-analytic and post-analytic indicators monitored less than analytic
– Less than 35% monitor order and use of testing for best care
– Less than 10% monitor result interpretation by clinician or patient
• All 30 total testing process indicators are being tracked to some degree
• The top 5 indicators most commonly tracked are required by regulation or patient safety goals
• The 5 indicators least tracked are in the areas of appropriateness of testing for best care
• Pre-analytic and post-analytic indicators monitored less than analytic
– Less than 35% monitor order and use of testing for best care
– Less than 10% monitor result interpretation by clinician or patient
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 43
Determine Steps Used
in Patient Identification
Process as Example for Benchmarking
Determine Steps Used
in Patient Identification
Process as Example for Benchmarking
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 44
What Features Would You Like in a New Patient Identification System?What Features Would You Like in a New Patient Identification System?
Features Percent
Handheld device reads bar codeHandheld device reads bar code 9090
Bar coded ID bandsBar coded ID bands 8484
System for + ID and blood administrationSystem for + ID and blood administration 8080
Automatic updates to handheld devices – Automatic updates to handheld devices – wirelesswireless 7979
Labels printed collection site – tests and Labels printed collection site – tests and containercontainer 6666
System to collect/track date + time and personSystem to collect/track date + time and person 6363
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 45
Patient Identification Systems Key FindingsPatient Identification Systems Key Findings
• Most labs use two unique identifiers – patient name and medical record number
• 50% of labs currently have the ability to print labels at the site of collection
• >80% would like future ID systems to include hand held devices that
– Read bar coded ID bands – Could be used for blood administration
• Most labs use two unique identifiers – patient name and medical record number
• 50% of labs currently have the ability to print labels at the site of collection
• >80% would like future ID systems to include hand held devices that
– Read bar coded ID bands – Could be used for blood administration
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 46
Gather List of Safety/Quality
Initiatives that Have Resulted in Error
Reduction
Gather List of Safety/Quality
Initiatives that Have Resulted in Error
Reduction
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 47
Open Ended QuestionOpen Ended Question
• What is the most significant initiative your laboratory implemented in the last three (3) years that effectively reduced laboratory errors or improved patient safety?
Total # of Responses – 557
• What is the most significant initiative your laboratory implemented in the last three (3) years that effectively reduced laboratory errors or improved patient safety?
Total # of Responses – 557
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 48
Most Significant InitiativesMost Significant Initiatives
Patient/ Specimen
Identification
Information Systems/ Laboratory Information Systems
Quality Improvement/ Management
System
Other
18%
50%
13%
12%
7%
Process/ System
Redesign
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 49
Significant Initiatives Key FindingsSignificant Initiatives Key Findings
• 50% of initiatives emphasize accurate patient and specimen identification
• The use of technology at 13% is either an untapped safety tool or many hospital laboratories have already implemented necessary technology for safety improvement
• The response of 12% indicating that their most significant event was implementing new or improved quality management systems demonstrates an evolving quality management environment
• Process/system design at 7% demonstrates that hospital laboratories are starting to look for error reduction by addressing process and system issues
• 50% of initiatives emphasize accurate patient and specimen identification
• The use of technology at 13% is either an untapped safety tool or many hospital laboratories have already implemented necessary technology for safety improvement
• The response of 12% indicating that their most significant event was implementing new or improved quality management systems demonstrates an evolving quality management environment
• Process/system design at 7% demonstrates that hospital laboratories are starting to look for error reduction by addressing process and system issues
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 50
Determine Topics for Future Surveys
and Benchmarks
Determine Topics for Future Surveys
and Benchmarks
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 51
What Topics Would You Like To See in Future Surveys and Benchmarks?What Topics Would You Like To See in Future Surveys and Benchmarks?
Total Responses = 831 % of Total
How to do QI and benchmarks/best practices 17
Personnel issues(Productivity, recruitment, retention, assessment, enhancement)
16
Patient and specimen identification 13
Appropriate clinical ordering/ utilization 12
Turnaround times – ED and generalTurnaround times – ED and general 88
Cost analysis/financial justificationCost analysis/financial justification 44
Information systems and technology/LISInformation systems and technology/LIS 44
Point of care testing/servicesPoint of care testing/services 33
Instrument/process automation technologyInstrument/process automation technology 33
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 52
Gather List of Individuals for a Future
Targeted Network
Gather List of Individuals for a Future
Targeted Network
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 53
472 or 83%
YESSaid
To Participation in anOngoing Quality Network
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 54
Conclusion Quality Pilot Survey Objectives MetConclusion Quality Pilot Survey Objectives Met
1. Collected information on quality management activities
2. Identified types of events that lead to investigations and process used
3. Determined indicators being used today and rank usage
4. Determined steps used in patient ID process as example for benchmarking
5. Gathered list of safety/quality initiatives that have resulted in error reduction
6. Determined topics for future surveys and benchmarking
7. Gathered list of individuals for a future targeted network
1. Collected information on quality management activities
2. Identified types of events that lead to investigations and process used
3. Determined indicators being used today and rank usage
4. Determined steps used in patient ID process as example for benchmarking
5. Gathered list of safety/quality initiatives that have resulted in error reduction
6. Determined topics for future surveys and benchmarking
7. Gathered list of individuals for a future targeted network
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 55
Next Steps Pilot StudyNext Steps Pilot Study
• Present survey data to CLMA members who responded
• Prepare information for publication
• Present survey data to CLMA members who responded
• Prepare information for publication
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 56
Thank youThank you
• CDC – Julie Taylor, PhD, MS and Staff
• Mike Noble, MD, FRCPC and IQLM Network Workgroup
• Paul Epner, MBA, Abbott Diagnostics
• CLMA – Charlie Fenstermaker, Staff Liaison– Survey respondents – Those who have agreed to be in the ongoing network– Board of Directors– Quality Advisory Council
• CDC – Julie Taylor, PhD, MS and Staff
• Mike Noble, MD, FRCPC and IQLM Network Workgroup
• Paul Epner, MBA, Abbott Diagnostics
• CLMA – Charlie Fenstermaker, Staff Liaison– Survey respondents – Those who have agreed to be in the ongoing network– Board of Directors– Quality Advisory Council
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 57
CLMA Quality Advisory Council CLMA Quality Advisory Council
Chair - Julie Gayken
CLMA Board Liaison – Anne Daley
Staff Liaison – Charlie Fenstermaker
Members -
• Peggy Ahlin, Senior Vice President, Quality & Compliance, ARUP Laboratories
• Lucia Berte, Quality Systems Consultant
• Paul Epner, Director, Global Business Research, Abbott Diagnostics
• Claudine Panick, Regional Director, Adventist Health Systems
Special Advisors -
• Joanne Born, Executive Director, JCAHO, Laboratory Accreditation Program
• Cecelia Kimberlin, Ph.D., V.P. Quality Assurance, Regulatory Affairs & Compliance,
Abbott Diagnostics
• Barbara Mitchell, Proficiency Testing Manager, American Academy of Family Physicians
• Anne Pontius, President, Laboratory Compliance Consultants, Inc.
• Steve Raymond, Administrative Laboratory Director,
Phoenix Indian Medical Center
Chair - Julie Gayken
CLMA Board Liaison – Anne Daley
Staff Liaison – Charlie Fenstermaker
Members -
• Peggy Ahlin, Senior Vice President, Quality & Compliance, ARUP Laboratories
• Lucia Berte, Quality Systems Consultant
• Paul Epner, Director, Global Business Research, Abbott Diagnostics
• Claudine Panick, Regional Director, Adventist Health Systems
Special Advisors -
• Joanne Born, Executive Director, JCAHO, Laboratory Accreditation Program
• Cecelia Kimberlin, Ph.D., V.P. Quality Assurance, Regulatory Affairs & Compliance,
Abbott Diagnostics
• Barbara Mitchell, Proficiency Testing Manager, American Academy of Family Physicians
• Anne Pontius, President, Laboratory Compliance Consultants, Inc.
• Steve Raymond, Administrative Laboratory Director,
Phoenix Indian Medical Center
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 58
“Working Together – Our Patients Will Be Safer”
“Working Together – Our Patients Will Be Safer”
Thank You
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 59
ConclusionConclusion
Identify a partner
Develop laboratory networks, pilot completed
Pilot study to determine potential of web based formatted survey
Collect information on laboratory quality practice and services
Determine respondents willing to participate in ongoing survey
Track trends in a volunteer group of laboratories
Develop process to obtain information on quality
Identify a partner
Develop laboratory networks, pilot completed
Pilot study to determine potential of web based formatted survey
Collect information on laboratory quality practice and services
Determine respondents willing to participate in ongoing survey
Track trends in a volunteer group of laboratories
Develop process to obtain information on quality
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 60
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
CDC
• Joe Boone, PhD, MS
• James Handsfield, MPH
• Devery Howerton, PhD, MS
• Colleen Shaw, MPH
• Susan Snyder, PhD, MBA
• Robin Stombler
CDC
• Joe Boone, PhD, MS
• James Handsfield, MPH
• Devery Howerton, PhD, MS
• Colleen Shaw, MPH
• Susan Snyder, PhD, MBA
• Robin Stombler
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 61
IQLM Network WorkgroupIQLM Network Workgroup
Co-Leaders:• Mike Noble, MD, FRCPC• Barbara Goldsmith, PhD,
FCAB
CDC Co-Liaisons:• Julie Taylor, PhD, MS• Steve Glenn, MS
Co-Leaders:• Mike Noble, MD, FRCPC• Barbara Goldsmith, PhD,
FCAB
CDC Co-Liaisons:• Julie Taylor, PhD, MS• Steve Glenn, MS
Team:• David Bruns, PhD• Nancy Elder, MD, MSPH• Julie Gayken, MT(ASCP)• Paul Epner, MBA• Jennifer McGeary, MT(ASCP),
MSHA• Charlie Fenstermaker• Barbara Mitchell, MS, MT (ASCP)• Margaret Piper, PhD, MPH• Rusty Senac• Shahram Shahangian, PhD, MS• David Sundwall, MD• Scott Young, MD
Team:• David Bruns, PhD• Nancy Elder, MD, MSPH• Julie Gayken, MT(ASCP)• Paul Epner, MBA• Jennifer McGeary, MT(ASCP),
MSHA• Charlie Fenstermaker• Barbara Mitchell, MS, MT (ASCP)• Margaret Piper, PhD, MPH• Rusty Senac• Shahram Shahangian, PhD, MS• David Sundwall, MD• Scott Young, MD
GDS_0524793_Epner_v8 62
Define network project priorities
Establish the ongoing process to foster further successful project partnerships
Establish the process for information sharing
DO
REVIEW SHARE
PLAN
Network Workgroup