• Users Online: 486
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 8-12

Quality evaluation of sample collection facilities of resource-limited medical laboratories in various states of India: A comparison between accredited and nonaccredited laboratories


1 Advance Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra; Department of Clinical Research and Health Care Management, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Himgiri Zee University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
2 Department of Clinical Research and Health Care Management, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Himgiri Zee University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
3 Advance Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
4 Department of Pathology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Mr. Manikchandra Ramkripal Tiwari
Advance Centre for Treatment Research and Education in Cancer, Tata Memorial Centre, Sector-22, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai - 410 210, Raigad, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/QAIJ.QAIJ_13_22

Rights and Permissions

Background and Aims: The majority of medical laboratory errors occur at the preexamination stage leading to poor patient outcomes. Very less information is available on the analysis of resource-limited medical laboratories (RLMLs) following the sample collection facility (SCF) checklist to improve their sample collection and handling practices and thus reduce occurring of such errors. The aim of this study is to find out the percentage SCFs complying with checklist criteria and to evaluate the importance of accreditation as a tool of quality improvement. Materials and Methods: SCFs of both accredited and nonaccredited RLMLs were compared for compliance with criteria given in the National Board for Accreditation of Testing and Calibration Laboratories 112 SCF checklist. Among 50 SCFs, seven were from accredited and 43 from nonaccredited RLMLs. Compliance was assessed for 43 criteria. The percentage SCFs complying with each criterion was evaluated; in addition, Chi-square testing with P value significant at P < 0.005 was calculated for each criterion. Results: All accredited SCFs showed compliance with most of the criteria. Out of 43 criteria evaluated for both accredited and nonaccredited SCFs, statistically significant difference in compliance was seen in 30 criteria with P < 0.005, whereas 13 criteria showed nonsignificant difference. Conclusion: Nonaccredited SCFs were found to be in poor compliance as compared to accredited SCFs. There is scope of improvement for deficiencies noted at multiple levels at such SCFs. Preexamination errors may be reduced by implementing criteria of the related SCF checklist.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed522    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded47    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal