Benefits and risks of standardization, harmonization and conformity to opinion in clinical laboratories

Abstract

Large laboratory systems that include facilities with a range of capabilities and capacity are being created within consolidated healthcare systems. This paradigm shift is being driven by administrators and payers seeking to achieve resource efficiencies and to conform practice to the requirements of computerization as well as the adoption of electronic medical records. Although standardization and harmonization of practice improves patient care outcomes and operational efficiencies, administratively driven practice conformity (conformity to opinion) also has serious drawbacks and may lead to significant system failure. Juxtaposition of the distinct philosophical approaches of physicians and scientists (i.e. “professionalism”) versus administrators and managers (i.e. “managerialism”) towards bringing about conformity of the laboratory system inherently creates conflict. Despite an administrative edict to “perform all tests using the same methods” regardless of available “best practice” evidence to do so, medical/scientific input on these decisions is critical to ensure quality and safety of patient care. Innovation within the laboratory system, including the adoption of advanced technologies, practices, and personalized medicine initiatives, will be enabled by balancing the relentless drive by non-medical administration to meet “business” requirements, the medical responsibility to provide the best care possible, and customizing practice to meet individual patient care needs.

Keywords:

• Laboratory
• professionalism
• managerialism
• conformity
• standardization

Note

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 This analogy owes credit to Mannion and Exworthy [32]. In Greek mythology Damastes (AKA Procrustes) lured travelers to customized beds where the “customization” was achieved by maiming the traveler rather than modifying the bed itself.

Additional information

Funding

This work is supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research Foundation Scheme Grant [to CN grant number RN254781-333204].