Kristy Wolniak1, Charles Goolsby1, Sarah Choi1, Asma Ali2, Nina Serdy2, Maryalice Stetler-Stevenson3. 1. Department of Pathology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Department of Evaluation, Measurement and Assessment, American Society for Clinical Pathology, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Laboratory of Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thorough review of current workload, staffing, and testing practices in clinical laboratories allows for optimization of laboratory efficiency and quality. This information is largely missing with regard to clinical flow cytometry laboratories. The purpose of this survey is to provide comprehensive, current, and accurate data on testing practices and laboratory staffing in clinical laboratories performing flow cytometric studies. METHODS: Survey data was collected from flow cytometry laboratories through the ASCP website. Data was collected on the workload during a 1-year time period of full-time and part-time technical and professional (M.D./D.O./Ph.D. or equivalent) flow cytometry employees. Workload was examined as number of specimens and tubes per full time equivalent (FTE) technical and professional staff. Test complexity, test result interpretation, and reporting practices were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were 205 respondent laboratories affiliated predominantly with academic and health system institutions. Overall, 1,132 FTE employees were reported with 29% professional FTE employees and 71% technical. Fifty-one percent of the testing performed was considered high complexity and 49% was low complexity. The average number of tubes per FTE technologist was 1,194 per year and the average number of specimens per FTE professional was 1,659 per year. The flow cytometry reports were predominantly written by pathologists (57%) and were typically written as a separate report (58%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey evaluates the overall status of the current practice of clinical flow cytometry and provides a comprehensive dataset as a framework to help laboratory departments, directors, and managers make appropriate, cost-effective staffing decisions.
BACKGROUND: Thorough review of current workload, staffing, and testing practices in clinical laboratories allows for optimization of laboratory efficiency and quality. This information is largely missing with regard to clinical flow cytometry laboratories. The purpose of this survey is to provide comprehensive, current, and accurate data on testing practices and laboratory staffing in clinical laboratories performing flow cytometric studies. METHODS: Survey data was collected from flow cytometry laboratories through the ASCP website. Data was collected on the workload during a 1-year time period of full-time and part-time technical and professional (M.D./D.O./Ph.D. or equivalent) flow cytometry employees. Workload was examined as number of specimens and tubes per full time equivalent (FTE) technical and professional staff. Test complexity, test result interpretation, and reporting practices were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were 205 respondent laboratories affiliated predominantly with academic and health system institutions. Overall, 1,132 FTE employees were reported with 29% professional FTE employees and 71% technical. Fifty-one percent of the testing performed was considered high complexity and 49% was low complexity. The average number of tubes per FTE technologist was 1,194 per year and the average number of specimens per FTE professional was 1,659 per year. The flow cytometry reports were predominantly written by pathologists (57%) and were typically written as a separate report (58%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey evaluates the overall status of the current practice of clinical flow cytometry and provides a comprehensive dataset as a framework to help laboratory departments, directors, and managers make appropriate, cost-effective staffing decisions.
Authors: Michael J Borowitz; Fiona E Craig; Joseph A Digiuseppe; Andrea J Illingworth; Wendell Rosse; D Robert Sutherland; Carl T Wittwer; Stephen J Richards Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: Brent Wood; Dragan Jevremovic; Marie C Béné; Ming Yan; Patrick Jacobs; Virginia Litwin Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2013 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: Brent L Wood; Maria Arroz; David Barnett; Joseph DiGiuseppe; Bruce Greig; Steven J Kussick; Teri Oldaker; Mark Shenkin; Elizabeth Stone; Paul Wallace Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2007 Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: B H Davis; J T Holden; M C Bene; M J Borowitz; R C Braylan; D Cornfield; W Gorczyca; R Lee; R Maiese; A Orfao; D Wells; B L Wood; M Stetler-Stevenson Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2007 Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: T Kalina; J Flores-Montero; V H J van der Velden; M Martin-Ayuso; S Böttcher; M Ritgen; J Almeida; L Lhermitte; V Asnafi; A Mendonça; R de Tute; M Cullen; L Sedek; M B Vidriales; J J Pérez; J G te Marvelde; E Mejstrikova; O Hrusak; T Szczepański; J J M van Dongen; A Orfao Journal: Leukemia Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 11.528