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

Lindsey A. Gough; Tim M. Reynolds

doi:10.1108/14664100020361746

Login

Welcome:
Guest

Search for:

Browse:

Product Information:

Resources:

Clinical Performance and Quality Healthcare

ISSN: 1063-0279
Merged into: British Journal of Clinical Governance

Online from: 1999

Subject Area: Health Care Management/Healthcare

Content: Latest Issue | Latest Issue RSS | Previous Issues

Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile

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

Document Information:
Title:	Is Clinical Pathology Accreditation worth it? A survey of CPA-accredited laboratories
Author(s):	Lindsey A. Gough, (Pathology Service Manager, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham, UK), Tim M. Reynolds, (Professor of Chemical Pathology, Queen’s Hospital, Burton-on-Trent, UK)
Citation:	Lindsey A. Gough, Tim M. Reynolds, (2000) "Is Clinical Pathology Accreditation worth it? A survey of CPA-accredited laboratories", Clinical Performance and Quality Healthcare, Vol. 8 Iss: 4, pp.195 - 201
Keywords:	Accreditation, Clinical governance, Clinical guidelines, Hospitals, Laboratories, Pathology
Article type:	Research paper
DOI:	10.1108/14664100020361746 (Permanent URL)
Publisher:	MCB UP Ltd
Acknowledgements:	Note: This paper was simultaneously published in British Journal of Clinical Governance, Volume 5 Number 4, 2000.
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.