Evaluation of Quality Indicators with Lean Six Sigma In Pre and Post Analytical Laboratories

Muhammad Ihsan Nurhadi; Surya  Ridwanna; Sonny Feisal  Rinaldi; Betty  Nurhayati

doi:10.52221/mjmlt.v3i1.795

Authors

Muhammad Ihsan Nurhadi Poltekkes Kemenkes Bandung
Surya Ridwanna Poltekkes Kemenkes Bandung
Sonny Feisal Rinaldi Poltekkes Kemenkes Bandung
Betty Nurhayati Poltekkes Kemenkes Bandung

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52221/mjmlt.v3i1.795

Keywords:

Lean Six Sigma, Pre-analytic, Post-analytic, Quality Indicator, Waste

Abstract

Background & Objective: Medical laboratories have an important role of 60-70% in diagnosis, patient monitoring, and prevention and treatment of diseases. Therefore, the laboratory must maintain and ensure the quality of service process. This study aims to determine the sigma value and identify waste in pre and post analytical in the laboratory, as well as determine Improvement proposals in order to reduce errors pre and post analytical laboratory.

Method: This research design is descriptive study that Analyzes the process and quality indicators at pre and post analytical with the Lean Six Sigma approach, which is a combination of Lean methods that focus on eliminating waste and Six Sigma that focuses on eliminating defects. This research was conducted as a process Improvement effort with five Six Sigma work steps (DMAIC) and identified eight types of waste (DOWNTIME).

Result: The results showed that the sigma value at pre and post analytical was 4.6 and 3.5 Sigma, and total sigma value for pre-post analytical was 4.3 Sigma so that both had not met the minimum target achievement of 5 Sigma (Excellent). There are two quality indicators that require improvement and enhancement including suitability of sample and TAT. The results also show that there are 4 wastes, consisting of 1 Defects, 1 Waiting, and 2 Not Utilizing Employees Knowledge.

Conclusion: Proposed Improvements are then given so that all waste identified in this study can be minimized so that the achievement of sigma quality indicators can increase.

References

Azman, W.N.W., Omar, J., Koon, T.S., Ismail, T.S.T., 2019. Hemolyzed specimens: A Major challenge for identifying and rejecting specimens in clinical laboratories. Oman Med. J. 34, 94–98.

Fleming, K., Naido, M., Wilson, M., Al., E., 2017. High-Quality Diagnosis: An Essential Pathology Package. Disease Control Priorities: Improving Health and Reducing Poverty. 3rd editio. ed. Washington (DC): The Inter.

Gupta, S., Kapil, S., Monica, S., 2018. Improvement of laboratory turnaround time using lean methodology. Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur. 11.

Huang, Y., Kenneth J, K., 2016. Using Six Sigma, Lean, and Simulation to Improve the Phlebotomy Process. Qual. Manag. J. 2, 6–21.

Inal, T.C., Goruroglu Ozturk, O., Kibar, F., Cetiner, S., Matyar, S., Daglioglu, G., Yaman, A., 2018. Lean six sigma methodologies improve clinical laboratory efficiency and reduce turnaround times. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 32, 1–5.

Kementerian Kesehatan, 2021. Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan RI Nomor 14 Tahun 2021 Tentang Standar Kegiatan Usaha dan Produk Pada Penyelenggaraan Perizinan Berusaha Berbasis Risiko Sektor Kesehatan. Menteri Kesehat. Republik Indones. Peratur. Menteri Kesehat. Republik Indones. 69, 1–13.

Lenicek Krleza, J., Honovic, L., Vlasic Tanaskovic, J., Podolar, S., Rimac, V., Jokic, A., 2019. Post-analytical laboratory work: national recommendations from the Working Group for Post-analytics on behalf of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Biochem. medica 29, 20502.

Lokesh, K., Samanta, A., Varaprasad, G., 2020. Reducing the turnaround time of laboratory samples by using Lean Six Sigma methodology in a tertiary-care hospital in India. pp. 1–6.

Lorenzo, M., SK, S., 2016. Blood Collection: A Short Course, Edition, 3. ed. Davis Company.

Mao, X., Shao, J., Zhang, B., Wang, Y., 2018. Evaluating analytical quality in clinical biochemistry laboratory using six sigma. Biochem. Medica 28, 1–4.

Plebani, M., Sciacovelli, L., Aita, A., Chiozza, M.L., 2014. Harmonization of pre-analytical quality indicators. Biochem. Medica 24, 105–113.

Pyzdek, T., Keller, P., 2018. The Six Sigma Handbook: A Complete Guide for Greenbelts, Blackbelt & Managers at all, fifth. ed. McGraw-Hill Education.

Rahmania, Y.L., Kuntjoro, T., Valentinus Suroto, 2019. Proving the Accuracy and Legal Liability of Clinical Laboratory Examination Results Using Automatic Tools 358–376.

Sanders, J.H., Karr, T., 2015. Improving ED specimen TAT using Lean Six Sigma. Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur. 28, 428–440.

Sawalakhe, P. V, Deshmukh, S. V, Lakhe, R.R., 2016. Evaluating Performance of Testing Laboratory using Six Sigma. Int. J. Innov. Eng. Sci. 1, 13–20.

Sianipar, O., 2019. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ATTEMPTS IN PRE-ANALYTICAL PHASE 26, 7–9.

Siregar, M., Wulan, W., Setiawan, D., Nuryati, A., 2018. Kendali Mutu – Bahan Ajar TLM. Pusat Pendidikan Sumber Daya Manusia Kesehatan BPPDSMK Kemenkes RI.

Sproul, B., 2019. Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma Improvement Methodology: Making the Case for Integration.

Sunder M, V., Mahalingam, S., M, S., 2019. Improving patients’ satisfaction in a mobile hospital using Lean Six Sigma – a design-thinking intervention. Prod. Plan. Control 31, 1–15.

Susanti, E., 2017. Laboratorium medik: Persyaratan mutu dan kompetensi berdasarkan SNI ISO 15189:2012. Badan Standardisasi Nasional, Jakarta.

Swetha, N.K., Kusuma, K.S., Sahana, K.R., Shobha, C.R., Abhijith, D., Akila, P., Suma, M.N., 2023. Sigma metric analysis of quality indicators across the testing process as an effective tool for the evaluation of laboratory performance. Med. J. Armed Forces India 79, S150–S155.

Westgard, S., Bayat, H., Westgard, J.O., 2018. Analytical Sigma metrics: A review of Six Sigma implementation tools for medical laboratories. Biochem. medica 28, 20502