Survey of Laboratory Stewardship Governance at US Academic Medical Centers.

IF 1.8 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Charles S Eby, Noor Al-Hammadi, Kathy Dodds, Deepak Sunkavalli, Ann M Gronowski
{"title":"Survey of Laboratory Stewardship Governance at US Academic Medical Centers.","authors":"Charles S Eby, Noor Al-Hammadi, Kathy Dodds, Deepak Sunkavalli, Ann M Gronowski","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfae136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efforts to appropriately utilize laboratory tests have been underway for several decades. However, limited information is available regarding the status of laboratory stewardship at academic medical centers. Prior to initiating a laboratory stewardship committee, a study was initiated to gain insights from peer institutions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online REDCap survey was created and emailed to US pathology department leaders at 94 academic medical centers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Response rate was 40%. Sixty-eight percent (n = 26) of respondents indicated that they have a laboratory stewardship committee. There was variability among academic medical institutions regarding governance, committee structure and responsibilities, and assessment of laboratory stewardship committee performance. There was consensus for inclusion of: hospital administration and clinical leadership; informatics (IT) support, and a multidisciplinary clinical team combined with laboratory medicine expertise. Of the 32% (n = 12) without a committee, 4 started one but found it unsustainable, and 6 were unsuccessful at starting a program. Respondents without a current laboratory stewardship program cited lack of leadership support, insufficient management and IT resources, and unclear vision and goals as major factors. Fifty-eight percent of those without a laboratory stewardship committee predicted their hospital would establish one within the next 5 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Survey results provide insights into the status of laboratory stewardship efforts at peer institutions. Awareness of the structural and leadership components critical to successful and sustained initiatives will improve the quality and value of clinical laboratory services.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":"10 1","pages":"13-25"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Efforts to appropriately utilize laboratory tests have been underway for several decades. However, limited information is available regarding the status of laboratory stewardship at academic medical centers. Prior to initiating a laboratory stewardship committee, a study was initiated to gain insights from peer institutions.

Methods: An online REDCap survey was created and emailed to US pathology department leaders at 94 academic medical centers.

Results: Response rate was 40%. Sixty-eight percent (n = 26) of respondents indicated that they have a laboratory stewardship committee. There was variability among academic medical institutions regarding governance, committee structure and responsibilities, and assessment of laboratory stewardship committee performance. There was consensus for inclusion of: hospital administration and clinical leadership; informatics (IT) support, and a multidisciplinary clinical team combined with laboratory medicine expertise. Of the 32% (n = 12) without a committee, 4 started one but found it unsustainable, and 6 were unsuccessful at starting a program. Respondents without a current laboratory stewardship program cited lack of leadership support, insufficient management and IT resources, and unclear vision and goals as major factors. Fifty-eight percent of those without a laboratory stewardship committee predicted their hospital would establish one within the next 5 years.

Conclusions: Survey results provide insights into the status of laboratory stewardship efforts at peer institutions. Awareness of the structural and leadership components critical to successful and sustained initiatives will improve the quality and value of clinical laboratory services.

美国学术医疗中心实验室管理治理调查。
背景:几十年来一直在努力适当地利用实验室测试。然而,关于学术医疗中心实验室管理状况的信息有限。在启动实验室管理委员会之前,启动了一项研究,以获得同行机构的见解。方法:创建了一份在线REDCap调查,并通过电子邮件发送给94个学术医学中心的美国病理学部门领导。结果:有效率为40%。68% (n = 26)的受访者表示,他们有一个实验室管理委员会。学术医疗机构在治理、委员会结构和职责以及实验室管理委员会绩效评估方面存在差异。共识包括:医院管理和临床领导;信息学(IT)支持,以及结合实验室医学专业知识的多学科临床团队。在没有委员会的32% (n = 12)中,4人启动了一个委员会,但发现它不可持续,6人在启动项目时失败。没有当前实验室管理计划的受访者认为缺乏领导支持、管理和IT资源不足、愿景和目标不明确是主要因素。没有实验室管理委员会的人中有58%预测他们的医院将在未来五年内建立一个。结论:调查结果提供了对同行机构实验室管理工作现状的见解。意识到对成功和持续的举措至关重要的结构和领导组成部分将提高临床实验室服务的质量和价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
137
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信