Evalution of the quality indicators in total testing process

Aim: Defining and measuring errors arised in total testing process has critical importance for test result safety. For this purpose quality indicators and six sigma approaches can be used. This thesis study aims to compare the total testing process at national and international level by Model of Quality Indicators and also defining ways for correction and prevention of detected errors. Material and Method: Total testing process of our laboratory was evaluated by using Model of Quality Indicators from October 2018 to March 2019. We have participated 23 of 34 quality indicators that has priority score one. Data were obtained from Laboratory Information System retrospectively. Results were calculated using criterias and formulas that defined for quality indicators. Sigma transformation was applied to quality indicators expressed as percentages and 90th percentile of turnaround time values were calculated. Results: Results were compared with the participant laboratory data sets, it was observed that pre-analytical and analytical quality indicators mostly had lower sigma values whereas post-analytical quality indicators had higher sigma values than average. The 90th percentile values in which post-analytical quality indicators turnaround time is measured were shorter than the 90th percentile values of the participating laboratories. Conclusion: Our laboratory has demonstrated high performance in the post-analytical process. Pre-analytical and analytical processes need to be improved. For this purpose test request and phlebotomy trainings should be planned. Laboratory information systems integrated with model of quality indicators program should be collectively designed. To achieve objective results, the number of participants should be increased by encouraging participation in the program. There is a need for new approaches for quality indicator definitions and calculation of values. Model of quality indicators program should be updated and improved using the feedback from the participants. Keywords: Model of Quality Indicators, Total Testing Process, Laboratory Errors