Assessment of histopathology and cytology request form documentation quality using six Sigma and Pareto analysis in Benghazi, Libya.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q2 PATHOLOGY
Hussien Hamid, Hamza Naas, Mohamed A Alshaqabi, Moutaz F Gebril, Nabeia A Gheryani, Abdel Alhakem Alhabone, Mohamed H S Ahmida, Abdulla M Elmansoury, Mohamed Najah
{"title":"Assessment of histopathology and cytology request form documentation quality using six Sigma and Pareto analysis in Benghazi, Libya.","authors":"Hussien Hamid, Hamza Naas, Mohamed A Alshaqabi, Moutaz F Gebril, Nabeia A Gheryani, Abdel Alhakem Alhabone, Mohamed H S Ahmida, Abdulla M Elmansoury, Mohamed Najah","doi":"10.1186/s13000-025-01740-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Histopathology and cytology request forms are pivotal in the pre-analytical phase of laboratory testing, where incomplete or erroneous documentation on these forms can compromise the entire testing process. This study aimed to assess the documentation quality and process performance of histopathology and cytology request forms using Six Sigma and Pareto analysis in three private laboratories in Benghazi, Libya.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on 1,181 request forms collected from February to April 2025. A structured checklist encompassing five documentation domains and 15 quality indicators based on WHO guidelines was used to assess form completeness. Six Sigma metrics including Defects per Unit (DPU), Defects per Million Opportunities (DPMO), Sigma level, and Yield (%), along with Pareto analysis, were applied to evaluate and prioritize quality deficiencies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>None of the evaluated request forms achieved full compliance with documentation standards. The overall process performance was unacceptable, with a Sigma level of 1.707 and a yield of 58.22%. Pareto analysis revealed that approximately 80% of documentation errors originated from three key domains: requesting clinician details, personal information, and clinical information. The requesting clinician details domain was the most deficient, with a Sigma level of 1.438 and a yield of 47.5%. The personal information domain followed, with a Sigma level of 1.867 and a yield of 64.31%. The clinical information domain showed a Sigma level of 1.263 and a yield of 40.6%. In contrast, the specimen details domain exhibited relatively better performance, with a Sigma level of 2.574 and a yield of 85.86%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Six Sigma and Pareto analysis were applied to identify critical deficiencies in documentation practices during the pre-analytical phase of histopathology services in Libya. The results highlight an urgent need to implement standardized staff training protocols, redesign request forms with mandatory fields, enforce accountability mechanisms, and establish robust quality monitoring systems. Low-cost tools-such as Excel-based compliance trackers and manual logbooks-can serve as effective interim solutions to enhance documentation compliance and support continuous quality improvement in resource-limited settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":11237,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic Pathology","volume":" ","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12821826/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13000-025-01740-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Histopathology and cytology request forms are pivotal in the pre-analytical phase of laboratory testing, where incomplete or erroneous documentation on these forms can compromise the entire testing process. This study aimed to assess the documentation quality and process performance of histopathology and cytology request forms using Six Sigma and Pareto analysis in three private laboratories in Benghazi, Libya.

Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on 1,181 request forms collected from February to April 2025. A structured checklist encompassing five documentation domains and 15 quality indicators based on WHO guidelines was used to assess form completeness. Six Sigma metrics including Defects per Unit (DPU), Defects per Million Opportunities (DPMO), Sigma level, and Yield (%), along with Pareto analysis, were applied to evaluate and prioritize quality deficiencies.

Results: None of the evaluated request forms achieved full compliance with documentation standards. The overall process performance was unacceptable, with a Sigma level of 1.707 and a yield of 58.22%. Pareto analysis revealed that approximately 80% of documentation errors originated from three key domains: requesting clinician details, personal information, and clinical information. The requesting clinician details domain was the most deficient, with a Sigma level of 1.438 and a yield of 47.5%. The personal information domain followed, with a Sigma level of 1.867 and a yield of 64.31%. The clinical information domain showed a Sigma level of 1.263 and a yield of 40.6%. In contrast, the specimen details domain exhibited relatively better performance, with a Sigma level of 2.574 and a yield of 85.86%.

Conclusions: Six Sigma and Pareto analysis were applied to identify critical deficiencies in documentation practices during the pre-analytical phase of histopathology services in Libya. The results highlight an urgent need to implement standardized staff training protocols, redesign request forms with mandatory fields, enforce accountability mechanisms, and establish robust quality monitoring systems. Low-cost tools-such as Excel-based compliance trackers and manual logbooks-can serve as effective interim solutions to enhance documentation compliance and support continuous quality improvement in resource-limited settings.

Abstract Image

使用六西格玛和帕累托分析评估利比亚班加西的组织病理学和细胞学申请表文件质量。
背景:组织病理学和细胞学申请表在实验室检测的分析前阶段是关键的,在这些表格上的不完整或错误的文件可能危及整个检测过程。本研究旨在使用六西格玛和帕累托分析在利比亚班加西的三个私人实验室评估组织病理学和细胞学申请表的文件质量和过程性能。方法:对2025年2月至4月收集的1181份申请单进行回顾性横断面研究。根据世卫组织准则,使用了一份包含五个文件领域和15个质量指标的结构化检查表来评估表格的完整性。包括每单位缺陷(DPU)、每百万机会缺陷(DPMO)、西格玛水平和产量(%)在内的六西格玛度量,以及帕累托分析,被应用于评估和确定质量缺陷的优先级。结果:没有一个评估的申请表完全符合文件标准。整体工艺性能不理想,Sigma水平为1.707,良率为58.22%。帕累托分析显示,大约80%的文档错误源于三个关键领域:请求临床医生详细信息、个人信息和临床信息。请求临床医生详细信息域最缺乏,Sigma水平为1.438,产率为47.5%。个人信息领域紧随其后,Sigma水平为1.867,收益率为64.31%。临床信息域的Sigma水平为1.263,产率为40.6%。相比之下,样品细节域表现出相对较好的性能,Sigma水平为2.574,收率为85.86%。结论:应用六西格玛和帕累托分析来确定利比亚组织病理学服务分析前阶段文件编制实践中的关键缺陷。结果表明,迫切需要实施标准化的工作人员培训方案,重新设计带有强制性字段的申请表,加强问责机制,并建立健全的质量监测系统。低成本的工具——例如基于excel的法规遵从性跟踪器和手动日志——可以作为有效的临时解决方案,以增强文档遵从性,并在资源有限的环境中支持持续的质量改进。
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
Diagnostic Pathology
Diagnostic Pathology 医学-病理学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
93
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Diagnostic Pathology is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that considers research in surgical and clinical pathology, immunology, and biology, with a special focus on cutting-edge approaches in diagnostic pathology and tissue-based therapy. The journal covers all aspects of surgical pathology, including classic diagnostic pathology, prognosis-related diagnosis (tumor stages, prognosis markers, such as MIB-percentage, hormone receptors, etc.), and therapy-related findings. The journal also focuses on the technological aspects of pathology, including molecular biology techniques, morphometry aspects (stereology, DNA analysis, syntactic structure analysis), communication aspects (telecommunication, virtual microscopy, virtual pathology institutions, etc.), and electronic education and quality assurance (for example interactive publication, on-line references with automated updating, etc.).
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书