Content uploaded by Matthew Rubinstein
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthew Rubinstein on Feb 10, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Diagnosis 2019; aop
Point/Counterpoint
Matthew L. Rubinstein
Roots of the total testing process
https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2019-0065
Received September 5, 2019; accepted September 11, 2019
Abstract: Laboratory professionals can contribute to
improvement of diagnosis in the context of the total test-
ing process (TTP), a multidisciplinary framework com-
plementary to the diagnostic process. While the testing
process has been extensively characterized in the litera-
ture, needed is accurate identification of the source of
the term “total testing process”. This article clarifies first
appearance of the term in the literature and supplies a for-
mal definition.
Keywords: clinical laboratory; diagnostic process; total
testing process.
Laboratory professionals (e.g. clinical laboratory scientists)
can contribute to improvement of diagnosis in the context
of the total testing process (TTP), a multidisciplinary
framework complementary to the diagnostic process [1,2].
While the testing process has been extensively character-
ized in the literature [3–9], needed is accurate identifica-
tion of the source of the term “total testing process” along
with formal definitions, as citations in the literature appear
circular and without ultimate attribution.
Systematic approaches for localizing and addressing
laboratory medicine process errors extend back to many
decades [10, 11]; however, the concept framework of the
“total testing process” was formally developed during a
1986 and 1989 Institute on Critical Issues in Health Labo-
ratory Practice hosted by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention [12, 13]. An electronic version of these
proceedings is located in the Open Science Framework
(OSF; https://osf.io), project Roots of the Total Testing
Process. Within these proceedings, the term “total
testing process” makes its first appearance in the litera-
ture, with the formal definition as follows: “the combi-
nation of all processes and procedures, coupled with the
interactions of all personnel and available technology
involved in the testing from the time the patient gains
access to the testing system to the time action taken by
the health professional exerts an effect on health out-
comes” [12, 13].
As a concept framework, the TTP reinforces that
laboratory testing is a collaborative patient intervention
with the goal of individual patient as well as popula-
tion health – therefore an important framework when
addressing diagnostic error with laboratory involve-
ment. It is important to note, however, that not all
issues in the diagnostic process are situated in the TTP,
nor are all efforts to improve the TTP directly relevant to
improvement of diagnosis. Further, improvement oppor-
tunities will vary in the degree of control and influ-
ence by participants, while terms such as total testing
process error or test cycle error (vs. laboratory error)
may be more generalized across testing pathways, invit-
ing multidisciplinary perspectives, accountability, and
improvement.
In sum, the TTP has been formally defined in the
following ways:
1. A systems-based framework for examining all pos-
sible interactions and activities that can affect the
quality of tests. It is the combination of all processes
and procedures, coupled with the interactions of all
personnel and available technology involved in the
testing from the time the patient gains access to the
testing system to the time action taken by the health
professional exerts an effect on health outcomes.
Note: the resource for citation 14 is also located in the
aforementioned OSF project) [12, 14].
2. A conceptual framework consisting of all components
that complete the laboratory testing cycle, from the
point of the clinical question to the point of clinical
action, known as the brain-to-brain model. It is defined
by the activities in three distinct phases that align with
clinical workflow outside and inside the laboratory:
preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic. This concep-
tual framework can aid (a) in design and implementa-
tion of interventions, restrictions, and limits that can
reduce or eliminate errors that adversely affect testing
and patient health outcomes, and (b) in understand-
ing the dynamics of laboratory medicine as well as
quality measures to improve care [15].
Matthew L. Rubinstein, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences
Lecturer, Rutgers University, Clinical Laboratory and Medical
Imaging Sciences, School of Health Professions, 65 Bergen Street,
GS-01, Newark, NJ 07103, USA, E-mail: matt.rubinstein1@gmail.com
Authenticated | matt.rubinstein1@gmail.com author's copy
Download Date | 10/6/19 12:19 AM
2 Rubinstein: Roots of the total testing process
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted
responsibility for the entire content of this submitted
manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Author declaration: This paper is exempt from ethical
approval.
References
1. Schi GD, Kim S, Abrams R, Cosby K, Lambert B, Elstein AS, etal.
Diagnosing diagnosis errors: lessons from a multi-institutional
collaborative project. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Marks ES, Lewin
DI, editors. Advances in patient safety: from research to imple-
mentation (Volume 2: Concepts and Methodology). Rockville, MD,
2005.
2. Balogh E, Miller BT, Ball J, Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee
on Diagnostic Error in Health Care. Improving diagnosis in health
care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015.
3. Plebani M. The detection and prevention of errors in laboratory
medicine. Ann Clin Biochem 2010;47(Pt 2):101–10.
4. Baird G. Preanalytical considerations in blood gas analysis.
Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2013;23:19–27.
5. Hawkins R. Managing the pre- and post-analytical phases of the
total testing process. Ann Lab Med 2012;32:5–16.
6. Hickner J, Graham DG, Elder NC, Brandt E, Emsermann CB,
Dovey S, etal. Testing process errors and their harms and con-
sequences reported from family medicine practices: a study of
the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research
Network. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:194–200.
7. Litchfield I, Bentham L, Lilford R, McManus RJ, Hill A, Greenfield
S. Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current
practice. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:691–9.
8. Bonini P, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Rubboli F. Errors in laboratory
medicine. Clin Chem 2002;48:691–8.
9. Boone J. Is it safe to have a laboratory test? Accred Qual Assur
2004;10:5–9.
10. Lundberg GD. Acting on significant laboratory results. J Am Med
Assoc 1981;245:1762–3.
11. Gambino SR. Met and unmet needs of the automated clinical
laboratory. Trans N Y Acad Sci 1970;32:816–20.
12. Martin ML, Addison BV, Wagner WM, Essien JD, editors. 1989
Institute on critical issues: improving the quality of health
management through clinician and laboratorian teamwork.
Wilmington, DE: The Du Pont Company, 1991.
13. Barr JT, Silver S. The total testing process and its implications for
laboratory administration and education. Clin Lab Manage Rev
1994;8:526–42.
14. Inhorn SL, Addison BV, editors. 1986 Institute on critical issues
in health laboratory practice: managing the quality of laboratory
test results in a changing health care environment. Wilmington,
DE: The Du Pont Company, 1987.
15. The Lewin Group. Laboratory medicine: a national status report.
Prepared for Division of Laboratory Systems, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2008.
Authenticated | matt.rubinstein1@gmail.com author's copy
Download Date | 10/6/19 12:19 AM