Journals / Türk Biyokimya Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 4

Biochemistry laboratory errors and patient safety: Turkey data

Pages
377–385
Publication Date
2022-11-06
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)

The management of hospitals and the staff should take measures and regulations about problems.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Our aim in this study is to provide information about the rate of errors in the process of the biochemistry laboratories in the hospitals in Turkey with the “Indicators”.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study we examined the quality indicators related to the disruptions in the biochemistry laboratory of hospitals for the year of 2018.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The management of hospitals and the staff should take measures and regulations about problems.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: Our aim in this study is to provide information about the rate of errors in the process of the biochemistry laboratories in the hospitals in Turkey with the “Indicators”. Methods: The hospitals calculate their own data accord ing to the indicator cards defined by the Ministry of Health of Turkey and enter into the system once in a year. In this study we examined the quality indicators related to the disruptions in the biochemistry laboratory of hospitals for the year of 2018. Results: All indicators except “Non-timely reported result rate in biochemistry laboratory” are found to be significantly higher in university hospitals. This indicator is found to be significantly higher in private hospitals (p:0.030) “Lost sample rate in biochemistry laboratory” is found to be significantly higherin Eastern Anatolia Region (p:0.000) and “Non-timely reported result rate in biochemistry laboratory” is found to be significantly higher in Aegean Region (p:0.008). Conclusions: The ratio of non-timely reported result rate is the most seen disruption in biochemistry laboratories. It may be due to lots of reasons; lack of biochemistry equipment, lack of staff, problems in transportation, etc. The management of hospitals and the staff should take measures and regulations about problems.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZTÜRK, A., TARHAN, D., BAŞER, D. A., AKSOY, H., DOLUKÜP, İ. (2022). Biochemistry laboratory errors and patient safety: Turkey data. Türk Biyokimya Dergisi, Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 4, 377–385. https://ajindex.com/articles/620682

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Reason J. The nature of error. In: Reason J, editor. Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990:1–18 pp
  2. Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999
  3. Alemdar DK, Aktaş YY. Medical error types and causes made by nurses in Turkey. TAF Prev Med Bull 2013;12:307–14
  4. Sheikh A, Hurwitz B. Setting up a database of medical error in general practice: conceptual and methodological considerations. Br J Gen Pract 2001;51:57–60
  5. De Vries EN, Ramrattan MA, Smorenburg SM, Gouma DJ, Boermeester MA. The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:216–23
  6. Anezz E. Clinical perspectives on patient safety. In: Wals K, Boaden R, editors Patient Safety Research in to Practice, 1st ed. London: McGraw Hill Education Open University Press; 2006:9–18 pp
  7. Smits M, Zegers M, Groenewegen PP, Timmermans DR, Zwaan L, van der Wal G, et al. Exploring the causes of adverse events in hospitals and potential prevention strategies [Electronic version]. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19:1–7
  8. Committee on Health Care Quality in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm. A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001
  9. SKS-Hastane. (Versiyon-5; Revizyon-01), T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Sağlık Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Sağlıkta Kalite ve Akreditasyon Daire Başkanlığı, 2; 2016. Baskı (SKS-Hospital. Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Health, General Directorate of Health Services, Department of Quality and Accreditation in Health 2. ed.) Ankara
  10. Wolcott J, Schwartz A, Goodman C, editors. Quality and the Total Testing Process. Laboratory Medicine a National Status Report; 2008:139–95 pp
  11. Coskun A, Inal T, Unsal I, Serteser M. Six sigma as a quality management tool: evaluation of performance in laboratory medicine; 2007:247–62
  12. Coskun A, editor. Quality management and six sigma. Rijeka, Croatia; 2010. Available from: www.sciyo.com
  13. Emekli Dİ, Güçlü K, Turna G, İlanbey B, Nar R, Çiçek E. Klinik laboratuvarlarda Analitik Süreç Değerlendirilmesi: Altı Sigma Metodolojisi (analytical process evaluation in clinical laboratories: Six Sigma methodology). Türk Klinik Biyokimya Derg 2016;14:79–86
  14. Lippi C, Church D, Fontana G, Grankvist H, Kouri P, Plebani P, et al. Pre-analytical quality improvement: from dream to reality. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:1113–26
  15. Gösterge Yönetim Rehberi. (Ve