IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v7y1987i3p156-167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Much Quality Control is Enough?

Author

Listed:
  • R.P. Channing Rodgers

Abstract

Quality assurance testing represents a substantial proportion of the clinical laboratory budget, but current guidelines are based on criteria that pertain to analytic error rather than to optimization of the cost-effectiveness of patient care. A general Bayesian mathematical model for the cost-effectiveness of assay quality control has been developed, and is demonstrated using previously published data. The cost-effectiveness of quality assurance as defined here depends upon the prevalence of disease, the shapes of the distributions of test results observed in the non-diseased and diseased populations, the decision limit selected for labeling results positive or negative, the costs and benefits associated with each of the possible therapeutic outcomes, the magnitude of random and systematic analytical errors, the statistical power of the quality control test in use, the costs associated with delays due to re-assay, and the proportion of total test cost attributable to quality control procedures. Given current clinical laboratory practice, much of this information will not be routinely avail able. The model combines these factors into a simple equation with three terms: one for the cost of the original and any required repeat laboratory analyses, one for the cost of delay entailed by the rejection of an assay batch, and one for the change in total costs consequent to rejection of erroneous assay results.

Suggested Citation

  • R.P. Channing Rodgers, 1987. "How Much Quality Control is Enough?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 7(3), pages 156-167, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:7:y:1987:i:3:p:156-167
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8700700306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X8700700306
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X8700700306?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milton C. Weinstein, 1981. "Economic Assessments of Medical Practices and Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(4), pages 309-330, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andronis, Lazaros & Maredza, Mandy & Petrou, Stavros, 2019. "Measuring, valuing and including forgone childhood education and leisure time costs in economic evaluation: Methods, challenges and the way forward," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Marion S. Rauner & Walter J. Gutjahr & Kurt Heidenberger & Joachim Wagner & Joseph Pasia, 2010. "Dynamic Policy Modeling for Chronic Diseases: Metaheuristic-Based Identification of Pareto-Optimal Screening Strategies," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(5), pages 1269-1286, October.
    3. David G. Simon & Michael F. Lubin, 1985. "Cost-Effectiveness of Computerized Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Dementia," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 5(3), pages 335-351, August.
    4. Stephen Palmer & Peter Smith, 1999. "Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies," Working Papers 166chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Andrew Briggs, 1995. "Handling Uncertainty in the Results of Economic Evaluation," Briefing 000410, Office of Health Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:7:y:1987:i:3:p:156-167. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.