Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: The Cost of Quality

  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    36

    The Cost of Quality

    How many times do we hear senior managers refer to the cost of quality, regulation and accreditation, but never about the impact of not addressing poor quality practices?
    With adequate staffing, skill mix, training , supervision, resources and allowing properly supported development as per UKTLC standards, we can:

    1. Reduce inappropriate blood use = improve patient care = Reduce £££.
    2. Improved training =reduce wastage of blood, reagents, consumables= Reduce £££
    3. Improve job satisfaction= reduce staff turnover , sickness, loss of expertise = Reduce £££
    4. Improved training and knowledge- Reduce errors and time to investigate=Reduce £££
    5. Reduce errors= reduce the impact on staff / second victims , patients ,society, reduce litigation costs = Reduce £££
    6. Allow staff to fulfill their roles = increased job satisfaction, pride , morale ,productivity ,patient safety, reputation etc.= Reduce £££

    Why is the age old concept of poor quality/culture= increased costs still not understood within some Pathology services?

    W Edwards Deming: You canít exhort, beat, in cent a workforce to achieve excellence. You can achieve compliance but not excellence.



    Last edited by Orr; 14th Apr 2018 at 10:32 PM.

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    49
    During recent discussions with colleagues it is of concern to hear that staff numbers are being further cut at some sites due to the transfusion teams instigating good patient blood management practices. For senior management to define a transfusion lab staffing levels based merely on number of units issued/ transfused is very short sighted, and will not help to achieve the quality practices we are aiming for . The amount of work to supervise, train,educate, mentor staff to help our clinicians make the correct transfusion decisions and prevent inappropriate blood use, and suggesting more appropriate treatments is far more important- and reduces overall blood use, which in turn promotes better patient care.
    Again, another example where short term cost savings in pathology are the priority and patient care is not.
    Be good to hear from sites where this is happening.
    Best wishes
    Rashmi

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    14
    Send them a copy of the Barnes report

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    36
    Thanks for the reference EClarke- the Barnes report ( Pathology Quality Assurance Review -2014) has some interesting references I could use. Little disappointed that even though this refers to CQC , these inspections don't appear to look into Pathology services accreditation or loss/ suspension- as this this is a significant KPI of service culture. Perhaps a bit more joined-up thinking with various inspection bodies could identify sites that are at risk much earlier.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •