medigraphic.com
Patología Revista Latinoamericana

2008, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Patol Rev Latinoam 2008; 46 (4)

Mexican pathology laboratories working features

Buesa RJ

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 318-326
PDF size: 316.39 Kb.


ABSTRACT


Objective: To determine technical work and productivity indexes in Mexican pathology laboratories.
Material and methods: Two questionnaires, one about work volume and productivity, and the other about safety, were distributed during the annual AMETEP meeting at Huatulco in May 2008 and the answers have allowed characterizing and comparing the work of 15 laboratories and the safety of 14 with those from the US and 12 other countries.
Results: The laboratories were classified into work volume categories, and those with less than 10,000 cases/year accounted for 69% of the total. Mexican laboratories have work volumes 30% lower, productivity levels 40% lower and personnel complements 10% higher than those they were compared with. Differences between categories for these indicators were not statistically significant (p › 0.93) but the personnel levels were (p ‹ 0.0006).
Comments: Productivity indicators with values 50% or lower than those compared with are caused by organizational, work definitions and equipment problems, excessive number of manual and non technical tasks, to the salary system and the employees’ almost permanent status, and all need to be considered to increase productivity and improve work flow. Work safety levels are equivalent to those existing in the US from 1970-1982 for 64% of the laboratories, and from 1989-1995 for the remaining. All safety concerns can be addressed with minimal changes and investment.


REFERENCES

  1. Buesa RJ. Histology: a unique area of the medical laboratory. Ann Diagn Pathol 2007;11(2):137-41.

  2. Buesa RJ. Histology safety: now and then. Ann Diagn Pathol 2007;11(5):334-9.

  3. Cochrane H. Guidelines on staffing and workload for histopathology and cytopathology departments. 2nd ed. London: The Royal College of Pathologists, 2005 [http://www.rcpath.org/pblications].

  4. Valenstein PN, Souers R, Wilkinson DS. � � Staffing benchmarks for clinical laboratories: a college of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of staffing at 151 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005;129(4):467-73.

  5. Novis DA, Zarbo RJ, Saladino AJ. Interinstitutional comparison of surgical diagnosis turnaround time: a CAP Q-Probe study of 5,384 surgical biopsies in 157 small hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;122(11):951-6.

  6. La Friniere M, Lewis S, Sheppard B, Carson F. A report from the National Society for Histotechnology Productivity task force. J Histotechnol 2004;27(4):293-5.

  7. Buesa RJ. Letter to the editor about “Special Report” from the NSH Productivity task force. J Histotechnol 2005;28(2):109.

  8. Buesa RJ. Productivity in the histology laboratory. Advance Med Lab Profess 2006;18(4):18-20,29.

  9. Buesa RJ. Staffing in the histology laboratory. Advance Med Lab Profess 2006;18(20):22-24,27.

  10. Buesa RJ. Salaries in histology. Ann Diagn Pathol 2008;12(2):122-7.

  11. Buesa RJ. Costs of histology procedures. Advance Med Lab Profess 2007;19(2):12-15.

  12. Buesa RJ. Characteristics of the cytology work. Advance Med Lab Profess 2007;19(18):14-16.

  13. Ambos cuestionarios pueden ser solicitados en rjbuesa@yahoo.com

  14. Puede accederse al sistema en http://www.vassar.edu/lowry

  15. SEMARNAT. Norma Oficial Mexicana que establece las características de los residuos peligrosos y el listado de los mismos y los límites que hacen a un residuo peligroso por su toxicidad al ambiente. NOM-052-SEMARNAT-1993. México, SEMARNAT, 1993:38.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com