Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 22, 2026
Measuring Lactase Enzymatic Activity in the Teaching Lab
Published on: August 6, 2018
Clinical audit in the laboratory.
1Department of Chemical Pathology, National Health Laboratory Service, Tygerberg Hospital, University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa. rte@sun.ac.za
This article explains how clinical audits can be used to improve laboratory services. Audits measure how well a laboratory is performing compared to set standards. These standards are ideally based on evidence-based medicine. If changes are needed, they are implemented and then re-audited later to check if they work. The study looks at three main parts of laboratory work: before testing, during testing, and after testing. It suggests that audits should be part of an ongoing quality improvement process. The authors also emphasize the importance of giving feedback to staff and users of the laboratory. They use the chemical pathology laboratory as an example to show how audits can be carried out in practice.
Area of Science:
- Clinical laboratory science
- Healthcare quality management
- Medical auditing practices
Background:
Clinical audits serve as a tool to evaluate and improve healthcare services. Prior research has shown that audits help identify areas for improvement in medical settings. However, gaps remain in understanding how audits specifically apply to laboratory environments. Established knowledge includes the role of audits in quality assurance and patient safety. This paper addresses how audits can be effectively implemented in laboratory services. It highlights the importance of evidence-based standards in audit processes. No prior work had resolved the detailed steps for conducting laboratory-based clinical audits. This paper contributes by providing a structured approach to audit implementation.
Purpose Of The Study:
The purpose of this study is to examine the principles and practices of clinical audits in laboratory settings. It aims to clarify how audits can be used to assess laboratory performance. The study focuses on the chemical pathology laboratory as a specific example. It outlines the steps necessary to conduct and monitor clinical audits. The motivation for this study arises from the need to standardize audit procedures. There is a need to ensure audits are based on evidence-based medicine. The study also seeks to emphasize the importance of feedback mechanisms in audits. It provides a framework for re-auditing after implementing changes.
Main Methods:
The study uses a review approach to analyze existing literature on clinical audits. It draws on established standards and principles of evidence-based medicine. The methodology includes a detailed examination of audit phases in laboratory settings. The authors reference preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical stages of audits. They describe how each phase contributes to the overall audit process. The approach involves comparing audit practices across different laboratory environments. The study also considers the role of feedback in audit outcomes. It emphasizes the need for clear documentation and monitoring procedures.
Main Results:
The study identifies three main phases of laboratory audits: preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical. It highlights the importance of measuring performance against established standards. Evidence-based medicine is proposed as a foundation for audit criteria. The study suggests that re-auditing is necessary after implementing changes. Feedback mechanisms are shown to be crucial for audit success. The chemical pathology laboratory is used as a model for audit procedures. The authors propose that audits should be continuous and cyclical in nature. The study also notes the need for clear documentation and monitoring.
Conclusions:
The authors conclude that clinical audits are essential for improving laboratory services. They emphasize the need for audits to be based on evidence-based standards. The study suggests that audits should be cyclical and include re-auditing after changes. The chemical pathology laboratory is presented as a model for audit procedures. The authors propose that feedback mechanisms are vital for audit success. They suggest that audits should be integrated into the continuous quality improvement process. The study also notes the importance of monitoring audit outcomes over time. The authors recommend that audits be tailored to specific laboratory environments.
Frequently Asked Questions
The main purpose is to measure laboratory performance against established standards and provide feedback for improvement.
The three main phases are preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical stages of laboratory services.
Evidence-based medicine ensures that audit criteria are grounded in proven clinical practices and data.
Re-auditing ensures that changes implemented after an audit are maintained and effective over time.
Feedback mechanisms help users and staff understand audit findings and guide future improvements.
The authors use it as an example to describe detailed audit procedures in a specific laboratory setting.
Related Concept Videos
01:05Quality Control
Quality control helps track data, visualize trends, and identify variations, making it easier to detect deviations that may affect the accuracy of an analysis. One way to do this is by generating a quality control chart, which...
01:24Automated Microbial Diagnostics