Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Is Clinical Pathology Accreditation worth it? A survey of CPA‐accredited laboratories

Is Clinical Pathology Accreditation worth it? A survey of CPA‐accredited laboratories Following two pilot studies, Clinical Pathology Accreditation (CPA) accreditation was introduced to UK pathology laboratories in 1992. Since then, significant numbers of laboratories have undergone accreditation but many have never applied. We carried out a postal survey of 145 accredited laboratories in the UK to independently determine the opinions of laboratory managers/clinicians about CPA and whether accreditation had produced any significant benefits to pathology services. Ninety‐three replies were received (64 per cent) a good response to an unsolicited questionnaire. Most laboratories felt accreditation by CPA had resulted in better laboratory performance with more documentation and better health and safety and training procedures. CPA accreditation was believed to provide useful information by approximately 50 per cent of laboratories but was also felt by a significant proportion of laboratories to be over‐bureaucratic, inefficient and expensive (46 of 93 respondents). Many complaints were voiced about the excessive paperwork that CPA generated and there was also a significant body of opinion that felt that CPA assessed areas were the domain of other regulatory bodies such as the CPSM, IBMS and HSE. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png British Journal of Clinical Governance Emerald Publishing

Is Clinical Pathology Accreditation worth it? A survey of CPA‐accredited laboratories

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/is-clinical-pathology-accreditation-worth-it-a-survey-of-cpa-Wurt4U2ZbH
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 MCB UP Ltd. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1466-4100
DOI
10.1108/14664100010361746
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Following two pilot studies, Clinical Pathology Accreditation (CPA) accreditation was introduced to UK pathology laboratories in 1992. Since then, significant numbers of laboratories have undergone accreditation but many have never applied. We carried out a postal survey of 145 accredited laboratories in the UK to independently determine the opinions of laboratory managers/clinicians about CPA and whether accreditation had produced any significant benefits to pathology services. Ninety‐three replies were received (64 per cent) a good response to an unsolicited questionnaire. Most laboratories felt accreditation by CPA had resulted in better laboratory performance with more documentation and better health and safety and training procedures. CPA accreditation was believed to provide useful information by approximately 50 per cent of laboratories but was also felt by a significant proportion of laboratories to be over‐bureaucratic, inefficient and expensive (46 of 93 respondents). Many complaints were voiced about the excessive paperwork that CPA generated and there was also a significant body of opinion that felt that CPA assessed areas were the domain of other regulatory bodies such as the CPSM, IBMS and HSE.

Journal

British Journal of Clinical GovernanceEmerald Publishing

Published: Dec 1, 2000

Keywords: Accreditation; Pathology; Laboratories; Clinical guidelines; Hospitals; Clinical governance

References