Background
Unreliable and ingenuine results issued by clinical laboratories have serious consequences for the patients. Sigma metrics is a standardized tool for Quality assessment for test performance in a laboratory.
Objective
To evaluate the performance of routine biochemistry laboratory at MMIMSR, Mullana in terms of Sigma metrics and Quality Goal Index.
Material and methods
This cross sectional study evaluated performance of 14 routine chemistry parameters using retrospective Internal Quality Control data of two levels on Siemens Dimension Rxl from Feb to Jul 2019 for CV% and EQAS reports from CMC, Vellore for Bias%. Sigma metrics was calculated using total allowable error targets as per CLIA and Biological Variability database guidelines.
Results
For level-2 IQC; TG, Chol, ALP showed excellent performance with σ > 6 while σ < 3 was observed for AST, Total Protein, Glucose, BUN and ALT using CLIA guidelines while in IQC Level-3 poor performers were only BUN and ALT with Ca, TG and Chol showing σ > 6. Further by using Biological Variability data guidelines; 10 parameters of IQC Level-2 and 5 of IQC level-3 were poor performers with σ < 3.
Conclusion
Sigma metrics is an excellent tool for performance analysis of tests performed in a clinical laboratory. Lack of precision in terms of CV% was seen for majority of the poor performers. Total allowable error targets using Biological Variability data revealed σ < 3 for 10 parameters while using CLIA guidelines σ < 3 was seen for only 5 parameters of IQC level-2.
Highlight
Following the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a sharp increase in rabies cases and deaths. Rabies outbreaks are being reported worldwide. Multiple disruptions in Rabies control occurred during the pandemic, significantly affecting lower-income countries. Countries need to develop specific action plans to become ‘rabies free’ by 2030.
A
BSTRACT
Background:
Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at the front line of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak response. They have faced great risks to both physical and mental health. We aimed to assess the psychological effect of COVID-19 among ancillary hospital staff.
Methods:
A cross-sectional study was conducted among 267 on-duty ancillary hospital staff using a semi-structured questionnaire to assess their psychological status and risk perception. In addition, their knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) and risk perception were also assessed. The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) was used to screen for psychological distress.
Results:
Among 267 participants, the mean (±SD) age was 33.5 (7.6) years. The majority knew about the symptoms of COVID-19 (88.4%), droplet spread (99.3%), and the importance of isolation (99.3%). About 35.2% were worried about infecting family members, while 26.2% were worried about colleagues at the frontline. Only 38.9% of them had a good knowledge score. Participants with high school and above education level had significantly good knowledge about COVID-19 (OR = 1.99; 95% CI = 1.17- 3.39) than those with primary school or below. Being female (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.17-3.39) and working with COVID-19 patients (OR 3.88, 95% CI 1.77-8.47,
P
= 0.001) was associated with psychological distress.
Conclusion:
The ancillary hospital staff had insufficient knowledge regarding the risk factors of COVID-19 but possessed positive attitudes and practices. Continued health education and appropriate psychological interventions may improve understanding and reduce psychological distress.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.