Evaluating Laboratory Performance on Quality Indicators With the Six Sigma Scale

Abstract

CONTEXT: Laboratory quality indicator data, most often presented and reported as a percentage of variance, may be misleading, inasmuch as variances, and therefore percentages, appear to be low. METHOD: Current data from laboratory quality indicators and national data derived from several years of College of American Pathologists Q-Probes studies were normalized to parts-per-million defects, as commonly practiced in the manufacturing and service industries for benchmarking performance. RESULTS: Laboratory data in parts-per-million defects demonstrated opportunities for significant improvements in laboratory performance across the total testing process. CONCLUSIONS: Historical quality assurance programs do not appear to be significantly improving the total testing process. Manufacturing and service industries are using quality systems strategies, such as ISO 9000 and the Baldridge Award Criteria, to effect improvements in both productivity and cost. Quality system solutions for performance improvement may provide a systematic approach to improving laboratory performance.