Dec 7, 2018 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
Experts say medical laboratories must overcome staffing challenges and develop a culture of continual inspection readiness
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups will be entering 2019 facing not only financial upheaval from Medicare Part B fee cuts and narrowing payer networks, but also an increasingly rigorous and ever-evolving regulatory environment.
Although the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) requirements have not undergone major changes since debuting in 1992, the medical laboratory industry has become more complex and technology-laden, resulting in old rules being applied to emerging technologies.
“People can get lulled into this sense that we know what standards are and we’re meeting them, but what has happened is the rules haven’t really changed—the industry has,” says Nora L. Hess, MBA, MT(ASCP), Senior Consultant for Accumen, a lab quality improvement company in San Diego, CA. “Technology is now jumping ahead so fast that keeping up with it and understanding how the rules are going to be applied is challenging.”
Hess and Anne T. Daley, MS, Quality Officer at ARUP Laboratories in Salt Lake City, UT, will co-present a 90-minute webinar on Dec. 13th titled, “Make Your Lab Assessment Ready in 2019: Know the Most Common Deficiencies in Accreditation and Certification and What to Expect in the Future.”
The program will review the top deficiencies reported by the College of American Pathologists (CAP), the Joint Commission, A2LA, and COLA.
Anne T. Daley, MS, CMQOE, CSSBB, CLC, MT, DLM (left), and Nora L. Hess, MBA, MT(ASCP), PMP (right), are Senior Consultants with Chi Solutions, an Accumen company. Together, they have extensive first-hand experience guiding clinical laboratories through the rigid and rigorous process of achieving inspection-ready status. (Photo copyrights: Chi Solutions, Inc.)
Why being ‘Inspection Ready’ Can Improve Performance and Increase Revenue
Striving to be “inspection ready” should be the goal of every clinical laboratory and pathology group. However, Daley notes labs typically operate with staffs that are stretched thin by retirements, illnesses, staff shortages, or ancillary demands on administrators’ time, caused by system-wide initiatives that range from electronic health record (EHR) rollouts to integration and consolidation of other labs.
“Most hospital laboratories are staffed at a level where they are working hard just to meet the daily patient care needs,” Daley says. “You add in all these additional projects and something has to give.”
In today’s challenging environment, Hess says laboratories that consistently perform well during the inspection process share several characteristics, including the following:
- a culture of quality across the laboratory; and,
- an emphasis on inspection readiness.
“They make inspection readiness a consistent focus across the entire laboratory,” Hess notes. “It becomes part of the calendar. It becomes part of what they talk about all the time. It is a part of their decision-making. It is hardwired into who they are and what they do … successful laboratories are making this part of their day-to-day activities, so it doesn’t get lost in the shuffle and it doesn’t get back-burnered.”
Hess and Daley note the types of deficiencies cited by accreditation agencies tend not to vary much from year to year. Testing personnel competency and proficiency testing are common themes, annually ranking high on top-10 lists of deficiencies found. However, laboratory directors increasingly are being singled out for issues related to qualifications and performance of responsibilities.
(To register for their Dec. 13th webinar or to order a DVD, click here. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://www.darkdaily.com/webinar/make-your-lab-assessment-ready-in-2019-know-the-most-common-deficiencies-in-accreditation-and-certification/).
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Make Your Lab Assessment Ready in 2019: Know the Most Common Deficiencies in Accreditation and Certification
CLIA Inspection–What they Mean and How to Avoid Them
‘We Wanted to Be the Best we Could Possibly Be’: CAP ISO 15189-Accredited Labs on the Difference it Makes
Are CLIA Inspections of Clinical Pathology Laboratories Getting Tougher? Why It Pays to Achieve “Inspection Readiness”
Mar 26, 2018 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations, News From Dark Daily
As the public gains awareness of the role clinical laboratories play in modern healthcare, increased engagement and understanding of the technology underlying many of these advances could create risk for labs without transparent reporting protocols to both patients and the public
In recent years, consumers have continually raised the bar in their expectation of quality when they interact with the healthcare system. Not only do patients expect providers—including clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups—to improve regularly over time, but the public has even less tolerance for medical errors of any type. Thus, a recent NPR story is one more warning to the medical laboratory profession that it should be devoting resources and effort to improving quality.
Today’s healthcare consumers and patients are more educated about and involved in the care process than ever before. While the exact science and skills may not interest the general public, the technologies underpinning much of the shift toward personalized medicine (AKA, precision medicine) are the same technologies that created the always-connected, digital lifestyles seen around the world.
With this, comes a level of scrutiny and questioning from the public that clinical laboratories or anatomic pathology groups would not have experienced even just a decade ago.
Mounting Scrutiny of Medical Laboratories and Healthcare Professionals
A recent segment on NPR’s “All Things Considered” highlighted this trend and questioned the quality control standards behind many of the procedures powering current testing. The segment also questioned the impact quality control has on the quality of biobanks used to research and create future technologies and tests.
Pathologist Richard Friedberg, PhD, Medical Director of Baystate Reference Laboratories and former president of the College of American Pathologists, told NPR, “We need to be sure that the stuff [doctors and researchers are] looking at is valid, accurate, reliable, and reproducible … If it’s garbage in, it’s garbage out.”
The story highlights improved standards and guidelines surrounding immunohistochemical (IHC) HER2 tests in the early 2000s. In 2007, The New York Times questioned the reliability of the tests, based on studies presented to the American Society of Clinical Oncology the week prior.
In response, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists released guideline recommendations outlining the exact standards required to reduce assay variation and ensure that data produced is accurate and reproducible. NPR’s coverage claims this is the only test with such strict guidelines.
“I don’t think physicians think this way about their entire medical system,” Carolyn Compton, PhD, CMO of the National Biomarker Development Alliance, CMO of the Complex Adaptive Systems Initiative, and professor of Life Sciences at Arizona State University, told NPR. “I don’t see how we’re going to get precision medicine at the end of the day when everything under the hood is so imprecise.”
When data and previous research powers much of the innovation taking place across the modern healthcare landscape, the accuracy of said data would seem critical. Yet, without standards in place, there’s not always safeties by which to verify sample integrity and other critical concerns.
Late last year, Dark Daily reported on a study published in PLOS ONE from Radboud University in the Netherlands questioning the accuracy of more than 30,000 published scientific studies that contained misidentified or contaminated cell lines. Guidelines, such as those created for IHR and FISH HER2 testing, provide standards intended to prevent such issues from occurring or detecting them when they do occur.
Quality versus Quantity: A Gamble Worth Taking?
Apart from challenges with healthcare reform and the regulatory landscape surrounding precision medicine, medical laboratories also must struggle with the challenges of gleaning and maintaining useful, accurate information from an ever-growing trove of data produced by analyzers and assays.
Yet, these mediocre datasets include the results of tests that carried a potentially significant impact on patient lives. In the first two weeks of February alone, both the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Telegraph published stories related to erroneous testing related to cancer and the potential impact on the clinical laboratories involved and the patients tested.
Increased coverage shows that the world is watching what goes on in medical laboratories, hospitals, and data centers as healthcare continues to evolve. Clinical laboratories must move forward with this in mind or risk pushback and questioning from the public. Transparency regarding standards, and reporting information to patients surrounding testing or concerns, might effectively address this rising trend.
“We are moving faster and faster and faster as this whole precision medicine train is moving down the track,” Tim Allen, MD, Laboratory Director at the University of Texas Medical Branch Department of Laboratory Services, told NPR. “I suspect standardization of these things is going to become a reality much quicker than I would have expected even a few years ago.”
That quality control issues in anatomic pathology are considered newsworthy by no less than NPR is a sign of increased public attention to the quality of lab testing. The story was written to educate the public about the gap that exists in the quality control of anatomic pathology testing. All of this is consistent with the trend for providers to be transparent and report their quality metrics to the public, including patients.
—Jon Stone
Related Information:
Hormone Receptor Testing Volume 1: Investigation and Findings Commission of Inquiry on Hormone Receptor Testing
Precision Medical Treatments Have a Quality Control Problem
HER2 TESTS: How Do We Choose?
Cancer Drug May Elude Many Women Who Need It
American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations for Immunohistochemical Testing of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors in Breast Cancer
Impact of Electronic Health Record Systems on Information Integrity: Quality and Safety Implications
His Doctor Said It Was Cancer. It Wasn’t. But the Lab Mix-Up News Came Too Late.
Up to 60,000 Cancer Test Results May Have to Be Reviewed After Women Wrongly Given the All-Clear
Over 30,000 Published Studies Could Be Wrong Due to Contaminated Cells
Netherlands University Researchers Question Validity of More Than 30,000 Published Scientific Studies; Findings Have Implications for Medical Laboratories
Mar 2, 2018 | Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Liquid biopsy tests hold much promise. But inconsistencies in their findings provoke scrutiny and calls from researchers for further development before they can be considered reliable enough for diagnostic use
Many commercial developers of liquid biopsy tests tout the accuracy and benefits of their diagnostic technology. However, there are an equal number of medical laboratory experts who believe that this technology is not yet reliable enough for clinical use. Critics also point out that these tests are being offered as Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs), which are internally developed and validated and have not undergone regulatory review.
Dark Daily has published several e-briefings on researchers who have sent the same patient samples to different genetic testing labs and received back materially different test results. Now, a new study by Johns Hopkins University concludes that liquid biopsy technology “must improve” before it should be relied upon for diagnostic and treatment decision making.
‘Certification for Medical Laboratories Must Improve’
Liquid Biopsy is the term for drawing whole blood and looking for cancer/tumor cells circulating in the blood stream. This is one factor in the imprecision of a liquid biopsy. Did the blood sample drawn actually have tumor cells? After all, only a limited number of tumor cells, if present, are in circulation.
Researchers at The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine know this and recently compared results of two liquid biopsy tests to determine which one would be more beneficial for patients. They published their findings in the December issue of JAMA Oncology.
Gonzalo Torga, MD (above left), and Kenneth J. Pienta, MD (above right), are the two Johns Hopkins Medicine doctors who conducted the recent study into the efficacy of liquid biopsy laboratory developed tests (LDTs) offered by different medical laboratory companies. They published their findings in JAMA Oncology. (Photos copyright: Johns Hopkins.)
To perform the study, researchers collected blood samples from 40 patients with metastatic prostate cancer and sent the same patient samples to two different Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) licensed College of American Pathologists (CAP) accredited laboratories. The labs then performed DNA next-generation sequencing on the samples following the directions of the two liquid biopsy manufacturers.
In reporting the DNA findings and results from the two medical laboratory companies, researchers discovered that the results completely matched in only three of the 40 patients! The Johns Hopkins researchers are concerned that patients could be prescribed certain cancer treatments based on which lab company’s liquid biopsy test their physician orders, instead of an accurate identification of the unique mutations in their tumors.
“Liquid biopsy is a promising technology, with an exceptional potential to impact our ability to treat patients, but it is a new technology that may need more time and experience to improve,” Gonzalo Torga, MD, Postdoctoral Fellow and Instructor at Johns Hopkins, and the lead author of the study, told Forbes. “We can’t tell from these studies which laboratory’s panel is better, but we can say that certification for these laboratories must improve.”
Unlocking New View of Tumors
Two commercial tests were used for the study:
Guardant360 from Guardant Health, Inc., uses digital sequencing to analyze genomic data points at the single molecular level. It examines 73 genes, including all National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) listed genes. The test searches for DNA fragments among billions of cells and digitally tags each fragment. This process unlocks a view of tumors that is not seen with tissue biopsies, which helps doctors prescribe the best treatment options for a particular patient.
“As a simple blood test, it provides physicians with a streamlined, cost-effective method to identify genomic alterations that can comprehensively influence a patient’s therapy response,” Helmy Eltoukhy, PhD, co-founder and Chief Executive Officer at Guardant Health, told MDBR.
“The only way of keeping ahead of those diseases and tracking those mutations has been through surgery, through doing a tissue biopsy and physically cutting a piece of the tumor out and sequencing it,” Eltoukhy noted in an interview with Xconomy. “What we’re able to do is essentially get the same, or sometimes better performance to tissue biopsy, but through two teaspoons of blood.”
According to the Guardant Health website, it takes just 14 days for a full report from Guardant360 to reach the ordering physician. In addition, the blood test provides samples with an adequate level of cell-free DNA to test 99.8% of the time and reduces errors and false positives found in standard sequencing methods by 1,000 times. It is common for samples used for tissue sequencing to have insufficient DNA for testing 20% to 40% of the time.
“We believe that conquering cancer is at its core a big data problem, and researchers have been data-starved,” explained Eltoukhy in VentureBeat. “Our launch of the world’s first commercial comprehensive liquid biopsy sparked a boom in cancer data acquisition. Every physician who orders one of our tests, and every patient whose tumor DNA we sequence, adds to this larger mission by improving our understanding of this complex disease.”
PlasmaSELECT-R64, manufactured by Personal Genome Diagnostics (PGDx), evaluates a targeted panel of 64 genes that have biological and functional relevance in making treatment decisions. PGDx announced the expanded version of its PlasmaSELECT assay in March of 2017.
“We are proud to launch the revolutionary PlasmaSELECT 64 expanded assay just six months after we introduced the most accurate, clinically actionable liquid biopsy tumor profiling assay to the market,” said Doug Ward, Chief Executive Officer at PGDx, in a press release. “This update is the first liquid biopsy assay that includes MSI (microsatellite instability) testing as a biomarker for high tumor mutational load, thereby providing cancer patients and their oncologists with information on whether they might be candidates for immuno-oncology therapies. The ability to generate DNA tumor profiling non-invasively using blood or plasma offers many advantages and makes genomic testing more accessible and usable.”
Regulations of LDTs Could be Needed to Improve Liquid Biopsy Tests
There are pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals who believe the technology behind liquid biopsies is not yet reliable enough for clinical use. The tests are being offered as LDTs, which are internally developed and validated, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows LDTs to be sold without regulatory reviews at this time. However, there are discussions regarding if and how to regulate LDTs, the outcome of which could impact how clinical laboratories are allowed to market the LDTs they develop.
Clearly, liquid biopsies are still in their relatively early stages of development. More testing and evaluation is needed to determine their efficacy. However, their potential to revolutionize cancer detection and care is obvious and a strong motivator for LTD developers, which means there will be future developments worth noting.
—JP Schlingman
Related Information:
Oncologists, Beware: Expensive Liquid Biopsy Tests Produce Conflicting Results
One Patient, Two Cancer DNA Tests, Two Different Results
Liquid Biopsy Results Differed Substantially Between Two Providers
Cancer Screening Firm Guardant Health Raises $360 Million to Sequence Tumor DNA of 1 Million Patients
Guardant Health Launches Guardant360 Blood Test in US
With $100M, Guardant Health to Expand Reach of Blood Test for Cancer
Personal Genome Diagnostics’ Expanded PlasmaSELECT 64 Is First Liquid Biopsy Pan-Cancer Profiling Panel to Include MSI Analyses for Immuno-Oncology
‘Liquid Biopsy’ Picks up Cancer Biomarkers in Blood, Study Finds
FDA Reveals New Approach to Laboratory Developed Tests
Using Extracellular Vesicles, Researchers Highlight Viability of Liquid Biopsies for Cancer Biomarker Detection in Clinical Laboratories
Sep 20, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Managed Care Contracts & Payer Reimbursement, Management & Operations, News From Dark Daily
To offset the loss of revenue from the price cuts to Medicare Part B clinical laboratory tests, labs will need to aggressively—but wisely—slash costs to balance their budgets
Any day now, Medicare officials will announce the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) for 2018. Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) have issued reports indicating that these fee cuts will total $400 million just during 2018, which Dark Daily reported on in July.
Many experienced industry executives expect this to be the single most financially disruptive event to hit the clinical laboratory profession in more than 20 years. This will not only have a substantial negative financial impact on all labs—large and small—but two sectors of the clinical lab industry are considered to be so financially vulnerable they could cease to exist.
At Greatest Risk of Financial Failure are Community Laboratories
The first sector is comprised of smaller community lab companies that operate in towns and rural areas. These labs are at the greatest risk because they are the primary providers of lab testing services to the nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities in their neighborhoods. And because they have a high proportion of Medicare Part B revenue.
Thus, the expected Medicare price cuts to the high-volume automated lab tests—such as chemistry panels and CBCs (complete blood count) that are the bread-and-butter tests for these labs—will swiftly move them from minimal profit margins to substantial losses. Since these labs have a cost-per-test that is significantly higher than the nation’s largest public lab companies, they will be unable to financially survive the 2018 Medicare fee cuts.
The second sector at risk is comprised of rural hospitals and modest-sized community hospitals. What officials at CMS and their consulting companies overlooked when they created the PAMA (Protecting Access to Medicare Act) private payer market price reporting rule is that these hospitals provide lab testing services to nursing homes and office-based physicians in their service areas.
Because of the low volumes of testing in these hospital labs, they also have a larger average cost-per-test than the big public labs. Thus, the 2018 cuts to Medicare Part B lab test prices will erode or erase any extra margin from this testing that now accrues to these hospitals.
Rural and Small Community Hospitals Rely on Lab Outreach Revenue
The financial disruption these Medicare lab test price cuts will cause to rural and community hospitals is a real thing. These hospitals rely on outreach lab test revenues to subsidize many other clinical services within the hospital. One rural hospital CEO confirmed the importance of lab outreach revenue to her organization. Michelle McEwen, FACHE, CEO of Speare Memorial Hospital in Plymouth, N.H., spoke to The Dark Report in 2012 about the financial disruption that was happening when a major health insurer excluded her hospital’s laboratory from its network.
Speare Memorial is a 25-bed critical access hospital in the central part of the state between the lakes region and the White Mountain National Forest. McEwen was blunt in her assessment of the importance of clinical laboratory outreach revenues to her hospital. “The funds generated by performing these [outreach] lab tests are used to support the cost of providing laboratory services to all patients 24/7, including stat labs for emergency patients and inpatients,” McEwen explained. “These funds also help support other services in the hospital where losses are typically incurred, such as the emergency room and obstetric programs.” (See “Critical Access Hospitals Losing Lab Test Work,” The Dark Report, April 2, 2012.)
For the second consecutive year, Lab Quality Confab (LQC) is offering an extended session on clinical laboratory accreditation and certification in New Orleans on October 24-25. CMS has indicated it will participate in this year’s session. It was an historic first for the clinical laboratory industry when last year’s Lab Quality Confab convened a panel that included experts in CLIA laboratory inspection and compliance from the four deeming organizations. From left to right: Moderator Nora L. Hess, MBA, MT(ASCP), PMP, Senior Consultant, Operations Management, Chi Solutions, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich.; Kathy Nucifora, MPH, MT(ASCP), Director of Accreditation, COLA, Columbia, Md.; Stacy Olea, MBA, MT(ASCP), FACHE, Executive Director of Laboratory Accreditation Program, The Joint Commission, Oakbrook Terrace, Ill.; Randall Querry, Accreditation Manager, Clinical, American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), Frederick, Md.; Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief, The Dark Report, Spicewood, Texas; and Denise Driscoll, MS, MT(ASCP)SBB, Senior Director, Laboratory Accreditation and Regulatory Affairs, College of American Pathologists, Northfield, IL. (Photo by Linda Reineke of Riverview Photography. Copyright: The Dark Report.)
All Medical Laboratories Will Suffer Financial Pain from Medicare Price Cuts
But it is not just community lab companies and rural hospitals that are at risk of financial failure as the Medicare Part B cuts are implemented by CMS on Jan. 1, 2018. Any clinical laboratory serving Medicare patients will experience a meaningful drop in revenue. Many larger hospital and health system laboratories are recasting their financial projections for 2018 to identify how big a drop in revenue they will experience and what cost-cutting strategies will be needed to at least break even on their lab outreach business.
This explains why the first big trend of 2018 will be substantial revenue cuts from the Medicare program. It also explains why the second big trend of 2018 will be smart cost-cutting as labs attempt to balance their books and lower spending proportional to the reduced income they project.
Labs Have a Decade of Successful Cost-Cutting, More Cuts are Difficult
Aggressive cost-cutting, however, puts the nation’s medical laboratories at risk for a different reason. For the past decade, most well-run labs have already harvested the low-hanging fruit from obvious sources of cost reduction. They installed latest-generation automation. They re-engineered workflows using the techniques of Lean, Six Sigma, and process improvement.
During these same years, most medical laboratories also reduced technical staff and trimmed management ranks. That has created two new problems:
- First, there are not enough managers in many labs to both handle the daily flow of work while also tackling specific projects to cut costs and boost productivity. Basically, these labs are already at their management limit, with no excess capacity for their lab managers to initiate and implement cost-cutting projects.
- Second, technical staffs are already working at near peak capacity. Increased use of automation at these labs has reduced lab costs because labs were able to do the same volume of testing with fewer staff. However, the reduced staffs that oversee the lab automation are now working at their own peak capacity. Not only are they highly stressed from the daily routine, they also do not have spare time to devote to new projects designed to further cut costs.
Each Year Will Bring Additional Cuts to Medicare Part B Lab Prices
This is why all clinical laboratories in the United States will find it difficult to deal with the Medicare Part lab test fee cuts that will total $400 million during 2018. And what must be remembered is that, in 2019 and beyond, CMS officials will use the PAMA private payer market price reporting rule to make additional fee cuts. Over 10 years, CMS expects these cuts will reduce spending by $5.4 billion from the current spending level.
Taken collectively, all these factors indicate that many medical laboratories in the United States will not survive these Medicare fee cuts. The basic economics of operating a clinical laboratory say that less volume equals a higher average cost per test and higher volume equals a lower average cost per test.
Medical Labs with Highest Costs Most at Risk of Failure from Price Cuts
What this means in the marketplace is that labs with the highest average cost per test make the least profit margin on a fee-for-service payment. The opposite is true for labs with the lowest average cost per test. They will make a greater profit margin on that same fee-for-service payment.
Carry this fundamental economic principle of medical laboratory operations forward as Medicare Part B lab test fee cuts happen in 2018. Labs with the highest average cost per test will be first to go from a modest profit or break-even to a loss. As noted earlier, the clinical lab sectors that have the highest average cost per test are smaller community labs, along with rural and community hospitals. That is why they will be first to go out of business—whether by sale, bankruptcy, or by simply closing their doors.
Learning How to Cut Lab Costs While Protecting Quality
Every pathologist and lab administrator seeking the right strategies to further cut costs in their lab, while protecting quality and enhancing patient services, will want to consider sending a team from their laboratory to the 11th Annual Lab Quality Confab that takes place in New Orleans on October 24-25, 2018.
Anticipating the greater need for shrewd cost-cutting that also protects the quality of the lab’s testing services, this year’s Lab Quality Confab has lined up more than 51 speakers and 39 sessions. Of particular interest are these extended workshops that come with certifications:
- Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt Training and Certification, led by Maureen Harte, MT(ASCP), LSSBB, Master Black Belt, of HartePro Consulting.
- Mastering Strategic Leadership in Pursuit of Clinical Lab 2.0, led by Karan Arora, Senior Global Marketing Director, Digital Health, Abbott Laboratories.
- Getting More from Lean for Lab Leaders: Henry Ford Production System Lean Gold Certification, led by Richard J. Zarbo, MD, DMD, System Chairman, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at Henry Ford Hospital.
Sessions will address proven ways to:
- Use real-time analytics to improve workflow in molecular laboratories;
- Introduce automation in microbiology; as well as
- New breakthroughs in core lab automation; and
- Success stories in reducing lab test utilization.
Lab Quality Confab is recognized for its use of lab case studies—taught by the nation’s early adopter lab organizations. Certification classes are available to gain proficiency in the use of Lean methods and Six Sigma tools, such as:
Given the strong interest in smart ways to cut costs, boost productivity, and balance revenue-versus-cost, registrations for this year’s Lab Quality Confab is running at a record pace. The full agenda can be viewed at this link (or copy this URL and paste into your browser: http://www.labqualityconfab.com/agenda).
Of special interest to lab leaders preparing to stay ahead of the financial impact of the Medicare Part B fee cuts, Lab Quality Confab offers deep discounts for four or more attendees from the same lab organization. This allows your lab’s most effective cost-cutters to see, hear, and learn together, so that when they return they can get a flying start helping you align your lab’s costs to the expected declines in revenue that will happen on Jan. 1, 2018.
Reserve your place today and register now http://www.labqualityconfab.com/register.
—Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief
Related Information:
Information, Agenda, and to Register for Lab Quality Confab Taking Place on October 24-25, 2017
In 2017, to Offset Declining Reimbursement and Shrinking Budgets, Savvy Clinical Laboratories Are Using LEAN to Improve Service and Intelligently Cut Costs
Lean-Six Sigma Medical Laboratories Begin to Innovate in Ways That Add Value to Physicians, Payers, and Patients
An Interview with Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report
At Lab Quality Confab in New Orleans this Week, Speakers Addressed Major Issues Faced by Medical Laboratories, including the Need for Labs to Deliver More Diagnostic Value to Physicians
Jul 26, 2017 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology
Decline in hospital-acquired conditions (HACs) overall since 2010 attributed to increased attention to safety protocols and practices by hospital staff in cooperation with clinical laboratory services
It’s now been almost nine years since the Medicare Program stopped paying hospitals and other providers for certain hospital-acquired conditions (HACs). Included in this list are hospital-acquired infections (HAIs). The goal is to substantially reduce the number of HACs and HAIs, thus improving patient outcomes, while substantially reducing the healthcare costs associated with these conditions.
So, almost nine years into these programs, has there been progress on these goals? This is a question of key interest to Medical laboratories and pathology groups because they have a front-line role in working with clinicians to diagnose and treat HAIs, while also looking to identify the transmission of HAIs within the hospital.
A recent report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), a division of the US Department of Health and Human Service (HHS), indicates that there has been progress in the goal of reducing HACs. The AHRQ report noted a 21% decline in HACs between 2010 and 2015. Data collected during that time indicates a reduction of more than 3.1 million HACs and nearly 125,000 patient deaths due to HACs.
In 2015 alone, nearly one million fewer HAC incidents occurred. The reduction saved “approximately $28 billion in healthcare costs,” an outcome which, the AHRQ report notes, is the result of increased attention to safety protocols in hospitals and a “period of concerted effort by hospitals throughout the country to reduce adverse events.”
Clinical Pathologists/Laboratories Play Key Role in HAI Prevention
Though many reported incidents are associated with adverse drug events, HAIs have been significantly reduced in recent years due to focused efforts on infection prevention. The report notes that clinical pathologists have become vital players in infection prevention programs, and that increased coordination between hospital medical laboratories and clinicians played a crucial role in the reduction.
Eileen O’Rourke is an Infection Preventionist at the Lankenau Medical Center in Philadelphia. And she has served as a leader and consultant for hospital-based infection prevention programs in Pennsylvania since 1984. In an article on the Wolters Kluwer Pharmacy OneSource blog, O’Rourke noted that successful infection prevention and control requires development of “a highly visible and administratively supported infection prevention and control program with qualified and trained personnel.” Clinical pathologists are part of that support team, providing surveillance, testing, and interpretation of data essential for identifying epidemiological origins of infection and pathogen distribution. And the vital services that clinical laboratories provide to reduce HAIs center on surveillance, prevention, and control.
The chart above was calculated on US Dollars in 2012. Since then, thanks to contributions by medical laboratories and pathologists in collaboration with hospitals, those costs have decreased significantly. (Image copyright: MLive.com.)
In an article for Lab Testing Matters, John Daly MD, Chief Medical Officer at the Commission on Office Laboratory Accreditation, and former Director of Clinical Laboratories for the Duke University Health System, highlights the importance of surveillance. He states that it is “an essential element of an infection control program” providing “data to identify infected patients and determine the site of infection” as well as “factors that contributed to the infection.” Medical laboratories must, Daly stresses, provide “easy access to high-quality and timely data and give guidance and support on how to use its resources for epidemiologic purposes.”
Daly argues that medical laboratories function as liaisons to clinical services, working to “improve the quality of specimens sent to the laboratory and promoting appropriate use of cultures and other laboratory tests.” The laboratory should, according to Daly, be involved in all aspects of the infection control programs. This ensures:
- Proper specimen collection;
- Accurate and rapid testing; and
- Accurate reporting of laboratory data.
Laboratory Data Provide ‘Early Warning’ for HAI Surveillance Systems
Robert A. Weinstein, MD, wrote in his 1978 article, “The Role of the Microbiology Laboratory in Surveillance and Control of Nosocomial Infections,” that medical laboratories and pathologists are central to prevention and control of HAIs. Laboratory records, Weinstein remarked, serve as important data sources that can identify early spread of infection, thus becoming an “early warning system” for a potential outbreak of infections. The sampling that laboratories perform identifies not only the strain of infection, but the method by which infection is spread, and the best treatment options. Nearly 40 years later his statements ring truer than ever, as anatomic pathology laboratory data continues to reveal patterns of infection faster and more precisely than ever before.
Sarah Mahoney, PhD, is a research scientist at Navitor Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge, Mass. In an article published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, she states that in surveilling patterns of infection, pathologists also decipher the source of infection. Mahoney wrote that it is “necessary to identify the causative organism” for surveillance and management control of HAIs. She also noted that pathologists must strive to discriminate between “hospital- and community-acquired infection” in order to provide clinicians with guidance for treatment, and to map “infection transmission within a clinical setting.”
Hospitals Rely on Medical Laboratories and Pathologists to Help Reduce HAIs
The concerted effort to reduce HACs and HAIs was inspired by incentives put forth by the US government. In 2008-2009, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) ceased paying for hospital-acquired conditions, including HAIs. Since that time, hospitals have worked to prevent and better manage HAIs. In the years since those incentives went into effect, hospitals have increasingly relied on medical laboratories and pathologists to provide necessary testing to prevent HAIs.
The CDC’s Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs create a further need for lab professionals to be involved in the identification, prevention, and treatment of HAIs. The core elements of the program state that the role of diagnostic laboratory testing—especially rapid diagnostic tests—is imperative in providing the necessary data needed to combat HAIs. The pressure is on for hospitals to reduce HAIs further to save lives and reduce costs. Thus, there is increased pressure on medical laboratories as well.
In an article in the College of American Pathologists’ online journal Cap Today,
Larry Massie, MD, Professor of Pathology at the University of New Mexico, and Chair of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine for the New Mexico VA Health Care System in Albuquerque, states that turn-around time is crucial for HAIs, but that laboratories often have difficulty keeping up with large volumes of samples. Massie suggests the use of new technologies could speed up turnaround time, particular for large healthcare providers.
The fight to reduce HAIs and HACs is showing significant progress, and clinical laboratories, working in tandem with clinicians and prevention programs, are a fundamental part of the success of HAI reduction. Clinical pathologists and laboratories often are the front line in prevention and management of HAIs, and the work they do in identifying infections is essential in the assessment and control of those infections.
— Amanda Warren
Related Information:
National Scorecard on Rates of Hospital-Acquired Conditions 2010 to 2015: Interim Data from National Efforts to Make Health Care Safer
How Hospitals Can Reduce Hospital-Acquired Infections
HAI Data and Statistics
Hospital Acquired Infection: Molecular Study and Infection Control Guidelines
Rapid Sequencing and Characterization of Pathogens in Hospital-Acquired Infections
The Role of the Microbiology Laboratory in Surveillance and Control of Nosocomial Infections
Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship Program
Pressure’s on to Halt Nosocomial Infections
Hospital Acquired Infections
Surveillance of Hospital-acquired Infections: A Model for Settings with Resource Constraints
The Laboratory and Infection Control
Role of the Microbiologist in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Study Finds Occupying Hospital Bed Previously Used by Patient Receiving Antibiotics Increases Odds of Developing C.diff Infection
