Running head: PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITY 1

Performance Improvement Opportunity

Student's Name

Institutional Affiliation
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITY
Performance Improvement Opportunity
Figure 1: Flowchart of the current process as discussed in the first meeting
The patient is checked
by the doctor
Request slips are
delivered to the floor
secretary.
The secretary stamps
the request slips with
the patient’s name and
the record number.
If the phlebotomist
finds the patient, they
draw the specimen.
After drawing the
specimen, the
phlebotomist places it
on the lab’s in box.
The lab staff collect the
specimen from the in box
and performs the test.
If it is a STAT, the secretary
notifies the doctor immediately.
Part 1
The doctor decides whether
tests are necessary or not.
The secretary sorts the
orders depending on
their urgency.
Routines are dropped
into the floor
secretary’s outbox for
picking by the lab staff.
If the phlebotomist
finds the patient, they
draw the specimen.
Once the results are out, the
lab staff fills it in forms
which are then placed at the
out box of the lab.
The secretary attaches the
results to the chart and flags it.
2
The doctor/nurse writes a
request slip indicating
whether the test is a
STAT,
Urgent, or
Routine.
Where the request slip has
been written by the nurse, it
must be co-signed by the
doctor.
The secretary calls the
lab staff to pick STATs
and urgents
The lab staff notify the
phlebotomist about the
order requests.
Messengers then
collect the results
from the lab outbox
and deliver them to
the floor secretary
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITY 3

Part 2

Table 1: Scores for exceeded standard turnarounds by category

> Standard % of Total Cumulative % of total

STATs 77 13 13

Urgents 334 57 70

Routines 178 30 100

Totals 589 100

400
350 334

300
250
200 178
150
100
100 77 70
57
50 30
13 13
0
STATs Urgents Routines

> Standard % of Total Cumulative % of total

Figure 2:Graphical presentation of scores for exceeded standard turnarounds by category

From the graph, 'urgents' had the highest number of tests whose turnaround time was

higher than the standard time of 3 hours at 334 (57%). In contrast, routines had 178 (30%) tests

with a higher than standard turnaround time of 12 hours. STATs had the lowest number of tests

that had exceeded the recommended turnaround time of 1 hour at 77 (13%). The high number of

'urgents' could mean that the doctors and nurses included 'routines.' Subsequently, the lab staff,

was overwhelmed by the large volume of 'urgents,' which explains the extended turnaround

times. Although the data helps the reader identify the type of tests, causing a delay in the lab, I
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITY 4

do not think that the data set was sufficient. In my view, the data was oversimplified and was,

therefore, not reliable.

An example of data that would have been included in the dataset is the time the results

took at the lab's out box before being collected by the messenger for delivery to the floor

secretary. Towards this end, several scholars have explored laboratory turnaround times,

intending to help increase these departments' efficiency. Undoubtedly, there is a difference in

terms of what is considered to be the turnaround time. For instance, Pati and Singh (2014) argue

that lab personnel and clinicians perceive turnaround times differently. For the lab personnel, the

time could start from when they receive the specimen to the time they get the results (Sivaneson,

Ramaloo, Giddy, George, & Rahman, 2019). In contrast, a clinician could consider it as the

period between the time they request the test to when they get the results. In the current study, it

was not specified which approach to take. Therefore, the team needs to specify the approach and

define the intervals from the test's ordering to results generation.

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITY 5

References

Pati, H. P., & Singh, G. (2014). Turnaround Time (TAT): Difference in Concept for Laboratory

and Clinician. Indian journal of hematology & blood transfusion: an official journal of

Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, 30(2), 81–84.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12288-012-0214-3

Sivaneson, S., Ramaloo, G., Giddy, M., George, S., & Rahman, T. (2019). Improving Laboratory

Turnaround Time in a High Throughput Medical Laboratory. Journal of Clinical

Chemistry AndLaboratory Medicine, 2(2), 1–6.