<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://community.advanceweb.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Turnaround Time</title><link>http://community.advanceweb.com/blogs/mt_3/archive/2009/06/24/turnaround-time.aspx</link><description>Suppose you want to measure turnaround time for ED specimens. This naturally raises the question What is turnaround time? According to one article in Clinical Biochemist , although clinicians complain about turnaround times being too long, most don't</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Debug Build: 61120.2)</generator><item><title>re: Turnaround Time</title><link>http://community.advanceweb.com/blogs/mt_3/archive/2009/06/24/turnaround-time.aspx#39615</link><pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:58:43 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">06d5312c-37b9-406e-be84-460d8d21f4fc:39615</guid><dc:creator>Scott Warner</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Ryan,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Good points. &amp;nbsp;Any system to measure TAT should try to isolate variables. &amp;nbsp;What amazes me is how perceptions persist despite hard data. &amp;nbsp;&amp;quot;The lab is slow&amp;quot; is said often enough until it becomes truth, when the variation is often outside the laboratory as you suggest.&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: Turnaround Time</title><link>http://community.advanceweb.com/blogs/mt_3/archive/2009/06/24/turnaround-time.aspx#39568</link><pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:06:52 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">06d5312c-37b9-406e-be84-460d8d21f4fc:39568</guid><dc:creator>Ryan </dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;In discussion of TAT, irregardless of how whoever measures it by whatever parameters.. &amp;nbsp;have other factors been taken into account as to what can affect it?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Big one - Staffing and times of day measured. &amp;nbsp;Obviously peak analytical times (morning run, off site drop offs, lunch/dinnertime and such..) can be taken into account as far as to number of specimens per instrument or number of verifiable results [problems] per analytical technologist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Second - a wild card .. unnecessary tests. &amp;nbsp;Yeah.. &amp;nbsp;Just how many of those tests that come from the floors or ED that we draw, receive and analyze each day are clinically necessary? &amp;nbsp;Does every ED patient really need the full rainbow of tubes for tests and UA and the like? &amp;nbsp;or can they get away with less? &amp;nbsp;How many of the tests from the floors are duplicates or overlaps or have orders with no stop times? &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;Obviously if they are not needed or are unnecessary, they waste tech time and get in the way of other samples of a higher priority&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As you said before in one of your previous blogs, Scott, computers were supposed to make data processing easier; when, in fact, they only seem to generate more work in the long run. &amp;nbsp;Hopefully as newer systems come out they can become more sophisticated in detecting errors like the above and eliminate or block them before they make it to the label.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thirdly,.. &amp;nbsp;- &amp;nbsp;Specimen errors that completely kill TAT and are a hinderance to us, the Docs and the patients. &amp;nbsp;Those samples &amp;nbsp;that come up contaminated, mislabeled, unlabeled, improperly collected or just not at all. &amp;nbsp; Time is wasted preanalytically collecting and processing before any error is detected and once it is detected the corrective action process is activated. &amp;nbsp;All taking time away from our normal procedures.&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>