Literature DB >> 20227016

Productivity standards for histology laboratories.

René J Buesa1.   

Abstract

The information from 221 US histology laboratories (histolabs) and 104 from 24 other countries with workloads from 600 to 116 000 cases per year was used to calculate productivity standards for 23 technical and 27 nontechnical tasks and for 4 types of work flow indicators. The sample includes 254 human, 40 forensic, and 31 veterinary pathology services. Statistical analyses demonstrate that most productivity standards are not different between services or worldwide. The total workload for the US human pathology histolabs averaged 26 061 cases per year, with 54% between 10 000 and less than 30 000. The total workload for 70% of the histolabs from other countries was less than 20 000, with an average of 15 226 cases per year. The fundamental manual technical tasks in the histolab and their productivity standards are as follows: grossing (14 cases per hour), cassetting (54 cassettes per hour), embedding (50 blocks per hour), and cutting (24 blocks per hour). All the other tasks, each with their own productivity standards, can be completed by auxiliary staff or using automatic instruments. Depending on the level of automation of the histolab, all the tasks derived from a workload of 25 cases will require 15.8 to 17.7 hours of work completed by 2.4 to 2.7 employees with 18% of their working time not directly dedicated to the production of diagnostic slides. This article explains how to extrapolate this productivity calculation for any workload and different levels of automation. The overall performance standard for all the tasks, including 8 hours for automated tissue processing, is 3.2 to 3.5 blocks per hour; and its best indicator is the value of the gross work flow productivity that is essentially dependent on how the work is organized. This article also includes productivity standards for forensic and veterinary histolabs, but the staffing benchmarks for histolabs will be the subject of a separate article. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20227016     DOI: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2009.12.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Diagn Pathol        ISSN: 1092-9134            Impact factor:   2.090


  4 in total

1.  Salpingo-oophorectomy specimens for endometrial cancer staging: a comparative analysis of representative sampling versus whole tissue processing.

Authors:  Oluwole Fadare; Dineo Khabele
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2012-10-16       Impact factor: 3.466

2.  A 'waterfall' transfer-based workflow for improved quality of tissue microarray construction and processing in breast cancer research.

Authors:  M Oberländer; H Alkemade; S Bünger; F Ernst; C Thorns; T Braunschweig; J K Habermann
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 3.201

3.  Real-time three-dimensional histology-like imaging by label-free nonlinear optical microscopy.

Authors:  Yi Sun; Sixian You; Xiaoxi Du; Allison Spaulding; Z George Liu; Eric J Chaney; Darold R Spillman; Marina Marjanovic; Haohua Tu; Stephen A Boppart
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-11

4.  National survey of anatomical pathology centres in Italy: the questionnaire.

Authors:  G Mazzoleni; M Barbareschi; M Basciu; D Fassinato; P Vian; F Vittadello; M Truini; G De Rosa; S M Mezzopera
Journal:  Pathologica       Date:  2019-03
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.