Journals / Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences / 2019 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of Analytical Process Performance by Six Sigma Method

Pages
177–183
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According tothe results of our study, our laboratory performance is good or first class.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: Clinical laboratories are responsible for producing reliable, reproducible and accurate test results.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Should establish quality in theirtest analysis and evaluate process performance.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According tothe results of our study, our laboratory performance is good or first class.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: Clinical laboratories are responsible for producing reliable, reproducible and accurate test results. Should establish quality in theirtest analysis and evaluate process performance. Six sigma is a quality management strategy that evaluation of processes. The aim of our studyis to evaluate the analytical process performance of routine tests in our laboratory with six sigma method.Methods: Internal quality control (IQC) data of routine tests in our laboratory were obtained retrospectively. Mean, standard deviation andcoefficient of variation (CV) values of the IQC data were calculated. Process sigma values were calculated using the formula “Total AllowableError (TEa)%-Bias% /CV% “. TEa values were determined according to CLIA’88. Sigma value ≤3 low quality, between 3 and 6 good quality and≥6 was recognized as world class quality.Results: The sigma levels of all the tests we evaluated were >3. Sigma levels of albumin, creatinine, LDL, urea, chloride, total cholesterol, HDL,sodium for IQC 1; albumin, urea, UIBC, chloride, creatinine, potassium, sodium and direct bilirubin for IQC2 were between 3–6. The sigmalevels of ALP, ALT, AST, CK, CKMB, iron, UIBC, phosphorus, GGT, glucose, calcium, LDH, magnesium, potassium, total protein, triglyceride, uricacid, amylase, lipase, direct bilirubin, total bilirubin, CRP for IQC 1; ALP, ALT, AST, CK, CK-MB, iron, phosphorus, GGT, glucose, calcium, totalcholesterol, HDL, LDL, LDH, magnesium, total protein, triglyceride, uric acid, amylase, lipase, total bilirubin, CRP tests for IQC 2 were ≥6.Conclusion: Six sigma methodology is an effective method for evaluating the analytical process performance of the laboratory. According tothe results of our study, our laboratory performance is good or first class.

🔖

Cite This Article

EMEKLİ, D. İ., ZORBOZAN, N., ERBAYRAKTAR, Z. (2022). Evaluation of Analytical Process Performance by Six Sigma Method. Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3, 177–183. https://ajindex.com/articles/560613

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Westgard JO. Six sigma quality design and control, 2nd ed. Madison WI. Westgard QC Inc; 2006
  2. Zorbozan O, Zorbozan N, Turgay N. Üçüncü basamak sağlık merkezinin parazitoloji laboratuvarında analiz öncesi sürecin kalite belirteçleri ve altı sigma yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. Mikrobiyol Bul 2019;53:319–329. [CrossRef] 3. CLSI. Developing and using quality indicators for laboratory improvement, 2nd ed. CLSI guideline QMS12. Wayne, PA. Clinical laboratory standards institute; 2019
  3. Wolcott J, Schwartz A, Goodman C, editors. Laboratory Medicine a National Status Report. Chapter IV: Quality and the Total Testing Process. 2008. pp.139–195. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/ labbestpractices/pdfs/2007-status-report-laboratory_medicine_-_a_ national_status_report_from_the_lewin_group_updated_2008-9.pdf 5. Coskun A, Inal T, Unsal I, Serteser M. Six sigma as a quality management tool: Evaluation of performance in laboratory medicine. www.intechopen.com 2007;247–262. [CrossRef] 6. Coskun A, editor. Quality Management and Six Sigma (ISBN 978-953- 307-130-5). www.sciyo.com. Rijeka: Croatia; 2010
  4. Sciacovelli L, Plebani M. The IFCC Working group on laboratory errors and patient safety. Clin Chim Acta 2009;404:79–85. [CrossRef] 8. Sciacovelli L, O’Kane M, Skaik YA, et al. Quality ındicators in laboratory medicine: from theory to practice. Preliminary data from the IFCC working group project “Laboratory errors and patient safety”. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:835–844. [CrossRef] 9. Demir S. Süreç Performansının Ölçülmesi: Altı Sigma Yöntemi. Aslan D, editör. Klinik laboratuvarlarda analitik kalite yönetimi kursu kitabı. İzmir: Türk Biyokimya Derneği; 2010. pp.83–90
  5. Lippi G, Plebani M, Simundic A. Special issue: Quality in laboratory diagnostics: from theory to practice. Biochemia Medica 2010;20:126– 130. [CrossRef] 11. Avcı E, Çeken N, Kangal Z, Demir S, İren Emekli D, Zorbozan N. Approach to pre-analytical errors in a public health laboratory. Turk J Biochem 2017;42:59–63. [CrossRef] 12. Westgard JO. Managing quality vs. measuring uncertainty in the medical laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:31–40. [CrossRef]
  6. Llopis MA, Trujillo G, Llovet MI, et al. Quality indicators and specifications for key analytical-extranalytical processes in the clinical laboratory. Five years’ experience using the six sigma concept. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:463–470. [CrossRef] 14. Miller G. Quality Control. In: McPherson R, Pincus M, e