Is your lab using syndromic testing
(multiplex) to detect SARS-CoV-2 and other infectious diseases, such as Flu A & B, RSV?
Other process changes have held steady, such as less reli- ance on just-in-time (JIT) and more standing orders (12% in 2022 vs. 11% in 2021), more electronic data and less paper (24% in 2022 vs 25% in 2021), consistent use of digital pa- thology (3% in 2022 and 3% in 2021), but decreased use of high-throughput platforms (22% in 2022 and 27% in 2021). Those surveyed also
Sparks, Nev. “And the supply chain crisis as well as manpower shortage due to infected or quarantining staff makes managing the testing volume even more challenging.” The vast majority of lab profes- sionals surveyed said they are dealing with staff shortages (92%). Radke said his lab had ad-
Nassreen Fontanilla, QA/LIS
equate staffing levels throughout the pandemic but that changed in May 2022 with increased compe- tition for talent in his area:
“With two other health systems in the local area and several more within the region, pressures from wage competition have caused staff to consider other opportunities or dayshift openings at other institu- tions. We’re attempting to combat this with changes to staffing models, flexibility with hours and shift assignment, ‘Thank You’ bonuses, and now sign-on bonuses of up to $5,000. The market is crazy and we are trying to keep up.”
Pandemic established permanent diagnostic process changes The COVID-19 pandemic prompted most labs to make changes in the way they run tests and record results. The survey results indicate that many of these process changes have remained in place. The percentage of respondents using multiple vendors for consumable testing supplies rose 11% since last year, at 65% in 2022 compared with 54% in 2021. Nearly half of respondents (46%) said they have reallocated or increased physical space for molecular testing in 2022, compared with 43% in 2021. More labs are using multiple reference labs at 22% in 2022, compared with 18% in 2021.
30 AUGUST 2022
MLO-ONLINE.COM
provided their insights into polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing: •23% use one PCR platform/analyzer (down from 25% in 2021) •30% use two PCR platforms/analyzers (up from 18% in 2021)
• 11% use three PCR platforms/analyzers (down from 14% in 2021)
• 21% use more than three PCR platforms/ analyzers (up from 19% in 2021)
• 14% use no PCR platform/analyzer (down from 24% in 2021)
30% use two PCR platforms/analyzers (up from 18% in 2021)
On her lab’s diagnostic process changes, Fontanilla
shared: “Prior to COVID, materials management usu- ally contracted with one or two vendors for supplies. During COVID, our purchasing department tries to reach out to different manufacturers to ensure that if one item is back ordered from one manufacturer, the hope is to find a feasible substitute. Prior to join- ing NNHS, I was involved in consolidating multiple instruments into two integrated systems and started an automation project during COVID.”
COVID testing trends When askedwhat tests their labs conducted for COVID-19, the percentage of respondents indicated the following: • D-dimer value: 79% (up from 53% in 2021) • C-reactive protein: 67% (up from 50% in 2021) • Fibrinogen: 51% (up from 30% in 2021) • FDP: 11% (up from 6% in 2021) • IL-6: 7% (down from 10% in 2021) • Ferritin: 6% (data N/A in 2021)
• Cystatin C (CysC): 3% (down from 4% in 2021) continued on page 34
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
