Health Care Financing Administration/Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988

1999 ◽  
Vol 123 (6) ◽  
pp. 478-481
Author(s):  
Virginia Wanamaker

Abstract The Health Care Financing Administration has introduced new concepts for the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 survey program. Surveyors now look at the laboratory as a whole as opposed to each regulatory requirement independently. This quality assurance approach allows the surveyor to assess the laboratory's ability to provide quality test results as well as identify and correct its own problems. Significant problems in laboratories are more easily identified using this method. Another new concept allows good performing laboratories to go longer between on-site surveys by completing a self-assessment questionnaire on alternate cycles. The Health Care Financing Administration is asking both surveyors and laboratories to evaluate these new approaches. The Health Care Financing Administration continues to work with the Food and Drug Administration through our Memorandum of Understanding to assess Food and Drug Administration requirements in hospitals and laboratories that provide transfusion services. Transfusion-related fatalities must be reported to the Food and Drug Administration and may be investigated by either the Health Care Financing Administration or the Food and Drug Administration. For fatalities needing investigation by both agencies, every effort will be made to conduct these jointly.

1992 ◽  
Vol 38 (7) ◽  
pp. 1237-1244 ◽  
Author(s):  
R H Laessig ◽  
S S Ehrmeyer ◽  
B J Lanphear ◽  
B J Burmeister ◽  
D J Hassemer

Abstract Proficiency testing (PT), recognized as a quality-assurance (QA) and quality-improvement tool, also has become the cornerstone of the Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA) regulatory strategy under the revised Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1967 (CLIA '67) and the proposed Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA '88). Use of PT as a regulatory tool corrupts it for things it can do better. PT as a primary regulatory strategy has severe limitations. We explore the nature of these limitations and their implications for clinical laboratories as they impact on the long-term success of HCFA's approved regulatory PT programs in 1991 and beyond, and CLIA '88 PT, which is to be implemented in 1994.


Perfusion ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Bennett ◽  
Cindy Cervantes ◽  
Scott Pacheco

Point-of-care testing (POCT) in the operating room has changed dramatically since the implementation of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA ‘88), which became effective in September 1992. With the implementation of CLIA ‘88, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) mandated that human specimen testing ‘for the purpose of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of any disease or impairment of, or the assessment of the health of human beings’, must be performed by a certified laboratory or testing site. To attain and maintain accreditation, the need for more stringent and comprehensive documentation has become imperative. The Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAHO), the College of American Pathologists (CAPS), HCFA, and state regulatory agencies require data such as staff credentialling, staff training/competency, procedure manuals, quality control logs, quality assurance/corrective action plans, correlation studies, proficiency testing results, and equipment maintenance logs to assure specimens are analyzed in a reliable manner by competent personnel so as not to jeopardize the safety and well being of the patient. Developing a comprehensive, ongoing survey readiness plan that includes a pre-survey checklist of all the documentation required and having this documentation in order and up to date well in advance of the survey will greatly enhance the probability of a successful survey conducted by the various regulatory agencies.


1999 ◽  
Vol 123 (7) ◽  
pp. 595-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ira A. Shulman ◽  
Sunita Saxena ◽  
Lois Ramer

Abstract The risk that a red blood cell unit will be associated with an ABO-incompatible transfusion is currently slightly greater than the aggregate risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus, human T-cell lymphotropic virus, hepatitis B virus, or hepatitis C virus by transfusion. Since the most common cause for ABO-incompatible transfusion is the failure of transfusionists to properly identify a patient or a blood component before a transfusion, transfusion services are encouraged to evaluate and monitor the processes of dispensing and administering blood. In addition, a proposal of the Health Care Financing Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services would require hospitals to use a data-driven quality assessment and performance improvement program that evaluates the dispensing and administering of blood and that ensures that each blood product and each intended recipient is positively identified before transfusion. The Los Angeles County+University of Southern California Medical Center assesses the blood dispensing and administering process as proposed by the Health Care Financing Administration. During the fourth quarter of 1997, 85 blood transfusions were assessed for compliance with the Los Angeles County+University of Southern California Medical Center policies and procedures: 55 transfusion episodes had no variance from institutional protocol and 30 had one or more variances. Of the transfusions with at least one variance, 16 had one or more variances involving the identification of the patient, the component, or the paperwork. The remaining 14 transfusions had one or more variances involving other criteria (nonidentification items). The most frequent variance was the failure to document vital signs during the first 15 minutes after a transfusion was started or after 50 mL of a component had been transfused. No variances in patient or blood component identification were noted in nursing units whose staff routinely performed self-assessment of blood administering practices. Based on these findings, a corrective action plan was implemented. Follow-up assessments (n = 63) were conducted after 3 months (during the second quarter of 1998). The compliance with the pretransfusion identification protocol improved from 81% to 95%. The most common reason for noncompliance continued to be a lack of checking vital signs. This report demonstrates the value of using a data-driven program that assesses blood administering practices.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document