If Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) is an institution’s ongoing commitment to change-for-the-better, then benchmarking offers both a roadmap and tangible goal toward that end.
Benchmarking is a continuous comparison of an institution’s processes and services with analogous processes and services of a recognized, external, best-in-class peer institution. The purpose is to glean applicable insights to improve one’s level of service (in the case of the clinical lab, that is understood as "improve the quality of patient care"), and to optimize value for money spent.1
As suggested above, a central purpose to benchmarking against a relevant peer group is to increase efficiency. This efficiency can take several forms, such as:
Improve patient care while maintaining or lowering related expenses
Lowering operational costs
Maximize utility of existing staff
Maximize utility of existing space
Ability to set realistic service and growth goals1,2
Nevertheless, there are challenges to correctly pursuing benchmark goals:
Benchmarking with a peer institution is a time- and labor-intensive process, and requires the submission of unbiased data by the host institution2
There exists an inherent bias on the part of lab managers that their institution is already best-of-class, based on subjective criteria (i.e., there is no need for an external point of reference)2
Variables such as size of lab, test menu, size and experience of staff, floor plan, and so on need to be taken into account in order to avoid detrimental interpretive pitfalls when attempting to apply benchmarking standards to another laboratory3
We can infer from the above that we must do something counterintuitive when engaging in a benchmarking process: we must process large amounts of unbiased performance data to yield actionable information, yet must then take a step back in order to glean a general principle which we may, in turn, apply to our own lab without fear of creating unrealistic goals. While quantitative data tell about what an institution did, it doesn’t suggest how it achieved those numeric goals. The benchmarking process should, ideally, supply the lab manager with "an inventory of those elements that contribute to their success (i.e., best practices).2
There are a few main elements involved in benchmarking, the details of which will vary according to the services being examined:
Data is obtained from a willing peer institution which demonstrates best-in-class performance in the service(s) under consideration
An on-site visit is arranged to discuss data, methods, etc.
The findings are examined to transform the raw data into information
A formal report of the findings, without subjective interpretation, and including recommendations, is presented to management and other stakeholders1,3
Ektelligen® stands ready to guide you in your pursuit of benchmarking. While the process can appear daunting, appropriate benchmarking is essential for the clinical lab to thrive in a sector which continually demands ever-increasing quality from available, often shrinking, resources. Contact an Ektelligen® representative today to begin your benchmarking journey!
Klooster NTM, Benchmarking of analytical laboratories; the advantages of benchmarking and the benchmarking process, Intertech Consultancy Services, www.intertech.com/outsourcing/laboratory/benchmarking/, January 2012
Collins W, Using benchmarking metrics to improve laboratory productivity, Lab Manager, www.labmanager.com/business-management/2006/05/using-benchmarking-metris-to-improve-laboratory-productivity, May 2006
Steiner JW et al., How to utilize benchmarking in the clinical laboratory, Clinical Leadership & Management Review, Vol 20 Issue 6, 2006