Context.— Knowledge of laboratory staff turnover rates are important to laboratory medical directors and hospital administrators who are responsible for ensuring adequate staffing of their clinical laboratories. The current turnover rates for laboratory employees are unknown. Objective.— To determine the 3-year average employee turnover rates for clinical laboratory staff and to survey the types of institutional human resource practices that may be associated with lower turnover rates. Design.— We collected data from participating laboratories spanning a 3-year period of 2015–2017, which included the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff members that their laboratories employed in several personnel and departmental categories, and the number of laboratory staff FTEs who vacated each of those categories that institutions intended to refill. We calculated the 3-year average turnover rates for all laboratory employees, for several personnel categories, and for major laboratory departmental categories, and assessed the potential associations between 3-year average all laboratory staff turnover rates with institutional human resource practices. Results.— A total of 23 (20 US and 3 international) participating institutions were included in the analysis. Among the 21 participants providing adequate turnover data, the median of the 3-year average turnover rate for all laboratory staff was 16.2%. Among personnel categories, ancillary staff had the lowest median (11.1% among 21 institutions) and phlebotomist staff had the highest median (24.9% among 20 institutions) of the 3-year average turnover rates. Among laboratory departments, microbiology had the lowest median (7.8% among 18 institutions) and anatomic pathology had the highest median (14.3% among 14 institutions) of the 3-year average turnover rates. Laboratories that developed and communicated clear career paths to their employees and that funded external laboratory continuing education activities had significantly lower 3-year average turnover rates than laboratories that did not implement these strategies. Conclusions.— Laboratory staff turnover rates among institutions varied widely. Two human resource practices were associated with lower laboratory staff turnover rates.
Context.— Consolidation of clinical microbiology laboratory services has resulted in extended transit time for blood cultures from service points distant from the laboratory. Sepsis is critical; delays in identification of etiologic agents of diseases could adversely impact patient care. Objective.— To examine the effect of total preanalytic time and blood culture volume on the instrument time-to-detection for bacterial pathogens in blood cultures. A secondary objective was to obtain relevant blood culture information by questionnaire. Design.— Participants in this Q-Probes study recorded date, time, and volume information for the first 50 positive blood cultures collected during the 12-week study period. Additional information regarding blood culture collection practices was obtained through questionnaire. Results.— Prolonged overall time-to-detection was secondary to prolonged preanalytic time, particularly prolonged transit time, rather than slower organism growth once bottles were placed on the instrument. Among 1578 blood cultures, the overall time from collection to positive result was significantly less for blood cultures collected on-site than for off-site locations. Most institutions lack sufficient training programs and do not monitor preanalytic time metrics associated with blood cultures. Four hundred fifty-six of the 1580 blood cultures with blood volume adequacy reported (28.9%) were inadequately filled. Conclusions.— Overall process time (specimen collection to positive blood culture detection) is predicted to be higher for blood cultures collected off-site. Transit time is a variable that can be reduced to decrease overall time to detection. Thus, improved training and closer attention to preanalytic metrics associated with blood cultures could decrease hospital stays and mortality rates.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.