Triple play in lab’s MALDI-TOF efforts
But when the study landed at the aforementioned weekly, the main reviewer’s primary reaction was less a question than a statement. “Which was, ‘You changed multiple things,’” says Dr. Musser, chair of pathology and genomic medicine, The Methodist Hospital System.
“Our response was: ‘Absolutely.’”
Changing three processes simultaneously, as Dr. Musser has learned, can be a difficult mental leap for some to make. Others who’ve read the paper responded similarly to the journal reviewer, he says: But, but, but, but, you didn’t change just one thing. So we can’t precisely determine.... That, of course, was precisely the point. Incremental changes, while helpful, tend to bring small improvements; if labs want to see big gains, they’ll have to start making equally big changes, he says.
While not exactly a call to arms, the study lays bare how labs generate data and send it on to other providers and (one would hope) to the bedside, and how they interact with colleagues. It’s plain to Dr. Musser that re-engineering could strengthen pathology service.
“As we go forward—and by ‘we,’ I mean our pathology profession—it’s going to be essential to examine very closely every process that we do, and ask the question, If we re-engineer an entire process, what sort of efficiencies, cost savings, and improved care, if any, will we achieve?” In this case, as the microbiology laboratory considered how best to use its recently acquired MALDI-TOF mass spectrometer, Dr. Musser and his colleagues identified three critical bottlenecks in patient care. The goal: bring more speed to each.
No comments:
Post a Comment