Search

Objectives. To assess Healthy People 2010 Objective 23-13 and its related sub-objectives measuring comprehensive laboratory services in support of essential public health programs, the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) collaborated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to create and administer a survey of state public health laboratories (PHLs). Methods. A committee of APHL, with representation from CDC, constructed the survey based on the 11 Core Functions of State Public Health Laboratories (hereafter Core Functions)-the premise being that the extent to which they fulfilled these Core Functions would represent their level of providing or assuring comprehensive laboratory services in support of public health. The survey was distributed biennially to all state health agencies from 2004 to 2008, and respondents were given two months to complete it. Results. The response rate for all surveys was ⩾90.2%. State PHLs were more likely to meet the sub-objectives relating to traditional functions (e.g., disease surveillance and reference testing) than other areas (e.g., food safety and environmental testing). Emergency preparedness fell in between. Overall, but most notably in the areas of food safety and training and education, there was improvement from 2006 to 2008, with the percentage of respondents who met more than half of the sub-objectives increasing from 58.7% in 2006 to 61 .2% in 2008. Conclusions. The comprehensive laboratory services survey has been a valuable tool in measuring the laboratory infrastructure that underpins public health in the U.S. It will be necessary to continue monitoring laboratory infrastructure in this way to determine where the gaps in services exist and how they can best be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Clinical laboratorians perform critical testing on patient samples to provide vital information used to aid in medical diagnoses, influence therapeutic treatment, and potentially impact public health. The goal of this study was to determine laboratorians' knowledge of quality measures in their workplace. Methods: A survey of clinical laboratorians was conducted in a small, predominantly rural state regarding their awareness of different components of quality assurance systems in their workplace, whether the effectiveness of these quality assurance (QA) systems was measured, and whether it was perceived to contribute to quality outcomes in the laboratory. This article examines the relationship between job title, years of experience, and knowledge of QA measures in the laboratory. Results: Laboratory supervisors were most likely to know about the quality assurance procedures in the laboratory, while inexperienced laboratorians with 0 to 10 years of experience were most likely to not know whether the effectiveness of the quality assurance procedures was being assessed, and whether the implementation of the quality assurance procedures contributed to quality of testing in the laboratory. Conclusion: Further education and training are needed so all laboratorians performing critical medical tests are aware of the quality assurance systems in place in their laboratories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. This article reports on a survey of medical laboratorians' knowledge of quality systems in their workplace and their perceptions about the effect of job function, education and training, professional credentials, and experience on the overall quality of testing and results. Methods. The Medical Laboratory Workforce Survey was designed and conducted in Vermont in 2005. Surveys were distributed to all laboratorians working in Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-regulated laboratories throughout Vermont. Results were analyzed for statistical significance using the Fisher's exact test for overall group comparisons. Results. Laboratorians perceived that they were generally knowledgeable about the quality systems in place in their laboratories (96% considered themselves familiar with quality assurance [GA] measures in their laboratory), but meeting quality objectives and perceptions of factors that impact quality measures in the laboratory were variably influenced by the laboratorians' years of experience, professional credentials, organization type, and job title. Almost half (47%) of laboratorians said they did not have a role in deciding the GA measures, whereas 77% felt they had a significant impact on meeting the GA objectives. Conclusions. Not all laboratorians feel that they play a significant role in assuring quality or influencing quality measures used in the laboratory. All laboratorians should be encouraged to take an active approach to influence quality systems in the laboratory to ensure the highest quality health care possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]