切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华临床实验室管理电子杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (02) : 127 -133. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5820.2026.02.006

论著

动态标杆管理策略联合六西格玛度量促进检验全流程质量改进
韦丽丽1,2, 李世兵1,2, 赖圣明1,2, 王相辉1,2, 蒙火凤1,2, 蔡淑陶1,2, 冯梓晴1,2, 杨孜欢1,2,()   
  1. 1 510655 广东广州,中山大学附属第六医院检验科
    2 510655 广东广州,广州市黄埔区中六生物医学创新研究院
  • 收稿日期:2026-02-28 出版日期:2026-05-28
  • 通信作者: 杨孜欢
  • 基金资助:
    国家卫生健康委医院管理研究所项目(JYHRJG2024B62); 中山大学附属第六医院学科建设经费(XZ202604012031033110)

Dynamic benchmarking strategy combined with Six Sigma metrics for quality improvement in the total testing process

Lili Wei1,2, Shibing Li1,2, Shengming Lai1,2, Xianghui Wang1,2, Huofeng Meng1,2, Shutao Cai1,2, Ziqing Feng1,2, Zihuan Yang1,2,()   

  1. 1 Department of Clinical Laboratory, the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou Guangdong 510655, China
    2 Biomedical Innovation Canter, the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou Guangdong 510655, China
  • Received:2026-02-28 Published:2026-05-28
  • Corresponding author: Zihuan Yang
引用本文:

韦丽丽, 李世兵, 赖圣明, 王相辉, 蒙火凤, 蔡淑陶, 冯梓晴, 杨孜欢. 动态标杆管理策略联合六西格玛度量促进检验全流程质量改进[J/OL]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2026, 14(02): 127-133.

Lili Wei, Shibing Li, Shengming Lai, Xianghui Wang, Huofeng Meng, Shutao Cai, Ziqing Feng, Zihuan Yang. Dynamic benchmarking strategy combined with Six Sigma metrics for quality improvement in the total testing process[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Laboratory Management(Electronic Edition), 2026, 14(02): 127-133.

目的

探讨联合应用国家临床检验质量规范的动态指标限值与六西格玛管理,在推动医学实验室全流程质量指标持续改进中的价值。

方法

分析某三甲医院检验科2023-2025年间15项质量指标数据。以2023年国家质量规范为基准、2025年规范为评价标准,纳入8项待改进质量指标,根据错误根源分为流程依赖型(5项)和操作依赖型(3项),采用动态标杆管理策略,实施“对标-达标-立新标”的阶梯式PDCA循环,对2023至2025年期间的改进效果进行分析评价。

结果

至2025年,流程依赖型指标显著改善:标本类型错误率、标本容器错误率、标本采集量错误率对应σ值分别提升至5.4σ(P<0.01)、5.3σ(P<0.001)、5.3σ(P<0.01);室内质控CV不合格率σ值提升至6.0σ(P<0.001);检验报告不正确率σ值提升至5.3σ(P<0.001)。操作依赖型指标中,血培养污染率与标本溶血率σ值分别改善至4.6σ(P<0.001)与4.7σ(P<0.05),抗凝标本凝集率改善无统计学意义。

结论

动态标杆管理策略结合六西格玛度量,通过阶梯式目标设定并聚焦于待改进指标,能显著提升检验全流程质量水平,其中流程依赖型指标的干预效果更为显著。

Objective

To explore the practical value of integrating the dynamic indicator limits derived from national clinical laboratory quality specifications with Six Sigma in driving the continuous improvement of quality indicators across the total testing process in medical laboratories.

Methods

Data of 15 quality indicators from the clinical laboratory of a tertiary hospital between 2023 and 2025 were analyzed. Using the 2023 national quality specifications as the baseline and the 2025 specifications as the evaluation standard, 8 quality indicators requiring improvement were included. Based on the root causes of errors, they were divided into process-dependent (n=5) and operation-dependent (n=3) indicators. A dynamic benchmarking management strategy was adopted to implement a stepwise PDCA cycle of "benchmarking, reaching the standard, and setting a new standard," and the improvement effects during 2023 to 2025 were evaluated.

Results

By 2025, the process-dependent indicators improved significantly: Error rates for specimen type, container, and collection volume decreased substantially, with corresponding σ values increasing to 5.4σ (P<0.01)、5.3σ (P<0.001)、5.3σ (P<0.01), respectively. The σ value for the IQC CV failure rate rose to 6.0σ (P<0.001), and the σ value for the incorrect laboratory report rate increased to 5.3σ (P<0.001). Among the operation-dependent indicators, the σ values for the blood culture contamination rate and specimen hemolysis rate improved to 4.6σ (P<0.001) and 4.7σ (P<0.05), respectively, while the improvement in the anticoagulated specimen coagulation rate was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The dynamic benchmarking management strategy combined with Six Sigma metrics, through stepwise goal setting and focusing on indicators requiring improvement, can significantly enhance the quality level of the total testing process, with the intervention effect on process-dependent indicators.

图1 2023年(基线期)不合格标本类型帕累托分析
图2 标本容器错误率的PDCA控制图 注:最低、适当、最佳为NCCL质量规范中三级医院的最低线、适当线、最佳线。其中2023—2024年数据对标2023年规范限值,2025年数据对标2025年规范限值。
表1 2023—2025年实验室质量指标与六西格玛水平汇总
质量指标分类与名称 2023年(基线期) 2024年(过渡期) 2025年(评价期) P* 2025规范对标(σ值比较)
均值/% σ值 均值/% σ值 均值/% σ值
检验前干预指标
标本类型错误率 0.028 5.000 0.011 5.200 0.006 5.400 0.002 >适当(5.300)
<最佳(5.600)
标本容器错误率 0.030 4.900 0.024 5.000 0.007 5.300 <0.001 =适当(5.300)
<最佳(5.600)
标本采集量错误率 0.047 4.800 0.045 4.800 0.009 5.300 0.004 >适当(5.100)
<最佳(5.400)
血培养污染率 0.660 4.000 0.424 4.100 0.110 4.600 <0.001 >最佳(4.500)
抗凝标本凝集率 0.015 5.100 0.043 4.800 0.036 4.900 0.128 >适当(4.800)
<最佳(5.100)
标本溶血率 0.115 4.600 0.097 4.600 0.067 4.700 0.015 <最低(5.000)
检验中干预指标
室内质控CV不合格率 0.015 5.100 0.000 6.000 0.000 6.000 <0.001 最佳(6.000)
检验后干预指标
检验报告不正确率 0.034 4.900 0.012 5.200 0.007 5.300 <0.001 >最低(5.000)
<适当(5.800)
常态化监测指标
标本丢失率 0.000 6.000 0.000 6.000 0.000 6.000 N/A 最佳(6.000)
室内质控项目开展率 93.600 3.000 95.500 3.200 93.500 3.000 N/A >最佳(2.900)
EQA参加率 100.000 6.000 100.000 6.000 100.000 6.000 N/A 最佳(6.000)
EQA不合格率 0.500 4.100 0.000 6.000 0.000 6.000 N/A 最佳(6.000)
检验项目替代评价方法使用率 100.000 6.000 100.000 6.000 100.000 6.000 N/A >最佳(1.200)
危急值通报率 100.000 6.000 100.000 6.000 100.000 6.000 N/A 最佳(6.000)
危急值通报及时率 100.000 6.000 100.000 6.000 100.000 6.000 N/A 最佳(6.000)
图3 流程依赖型指标年度比较 注:5项流程依赖型指标连续改进3年的趋势。基于Kruskal-Wallis单因素方差分析的事后两两比较得到的显著性差异,aP<0.05,bP<0.01,cP<0.001。
图4 操作依赖型指标年度对比分析 注:3项指标连续3年的趋势。aP<0.05,bP<0.01,cP<0.001。
1
PLEBANI M. Quality in laboratory medicine: 50 years on[J]. Clinical biochemistry, 2017, 50(3): 101-104.
2
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION. Medical laboratories-Requirements for quality and competence: ISO 15189:2022[S]. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2022.
3
CHEN M, ZHENG Y, XU J, et al. Quality checks to promote patient safety: A 10-year retrospective study of adverse events in an emergency laboratory[J]. NEJM Catalyst innovations in care delivery, 2025, 6(s1).
4
LI Y, CHEN F L, CHEN X J. The surveys on quality indicators for the total testing process in clinical laboratories of Fujian Province in China from 2018 to 2023[J]. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2025, 63(1): 118-128.
5
杜雨轩, 王治国, 张志新, 等. 2024年全国临床检验专业15项质量指标室间质量评价结果分析[J]. 中华检验医学杂志, 2026, 49(1): 84-94.
6
XIA Y, WANG X X, YAN C L, et al. Risk assessment of the total testing process based on quality indicators with the Sigma metrics[J]. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2020, 58(8): 1223-1231.
7
段敏, 王薇, 赵海建, 等. 2018年全国临床检验质量指标室间质量评价结果分析及初步质量规范的制定[J]. 临床检验杂志, 2018, 36(12): 931-936.
8
DE GUIRE V, GALORO C A O, IBARZ M, et al. Recommendations from the IFCC Working Group on laboratory errors and patient safety for the global adoption of an essential quality indicators panel in laboratory medicine[J]. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2025, 64(4):806-812.
9
ZUBANOV P S, TREGUB P P, GOLDBERG A S, et al. Comprehensive assessment of medical laboratory performance: A 4D model of quality, economics, velocity, and productivity indicators[J]. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2025, 63(10): 1928-1940.
10
KANG F, LI W, XIA X, et al. Three years' experience of quality monitoring program on pre-analytical errors in China[J]. Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2021, 35(4): e23699.
11
APOSTU S A, VASILE V, VERES C. Externalities of lean implementation in medical laboratories. Process optimization vs. adaptation and flexibility for future[J]. International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021, 18(23): 12309.
12
中华医学会检验医学分会. 不合格静脉血标本管理中国专家共识[J]. 中华检验医学杂志, 2020, 43(10): 956-963.
13
CHERIE N, BERTA D M, TAMIR M, et al. Improving laboratory turnaround times in clinical settings: A systematic review of the impact of lean methodology application[J]. PLoS One, 2024, 19(10): e0312033.
14
GETAWA S, AYNALEM M, MELKU M, et al. Blood specimen rejection rate in clinical laboratory: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Practical laboratory medicine, 2022, 33: e00303.
15
董敏, 程萌, 刘宁, 等. 鱼骨图与柏拉图及PDCA循环分析法在病案管理中的应用[J]. 国际护理学杂志, 2024, 43(21): 4010-4015.
16
王治国, 费阳, 康凤凤. 临床检验质量指标[M]. 1版. 北京 : 人民卫生出版社, 2016.
17
吴宗勇, 张晓煜, 张丽, 等. 检验与临床沟通方式探讨[J]. 检验医学与临床, 2022, 19(5): 712-714.
18
阚丽娟, 张丽军, 张秀明. 正确理解和应用15项临床检验质量控制指标[J]. 检验医学, 2022, 37(10): 907-914.
19
SCIACOVELLI L, PADOAN A, AITA A, et al. Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: state-of-the-art, quality specifications and future strategies[J]. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2023, 61(4): 688-695.
20
PLEBANI M. Quality indicators: An evolving target for laboratory medicine[J]. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2025, 63(10): 1889-1890.
21
CAI X, LIN Y, ZHAN L, et al. Optimizing clinical laboratory efficiency through digital shadow and lean Six Sigma integration: A real-time monitoring approach to reduce intra-laboratory turnaround time[J]. Digital health, 2025, 11:20552076251375939.
22
刘文静, 秦绪珍, 孙丹丹, 等. 北京协和医院检验科报告不正确率分析及持续改进[J]. 国际检验医学杂志, 2021, 42(10): 1271-1273, 1280.
23
LIU B, SUN Z, CHEN K, et al. Evaluation of a Six Sigma-based dynamic quality control strategy for hematology analysis: A multicenter study[J]. Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2026, 40(2): e70138.
24
HAROUN A, AL-RUZZIEH M A, HUSSIEN N, et al. Using failure mode and effects analysis in improving nursing blood sampling at an international specialized cancer center[J]. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention, 2021, 22(4): 1247-1254.
25
刘会玲, 赵滨, 李萍, 等. 基于多学科团队的行动研究法在血标本检验前质量控制中的应用[J]. 中华现代护理杂志, 2019, 25(18): 2291-2295.
26
欧阳能良, 王伟佳, 黄福达, 等. 多措并举提升检验前质量的实践与体会[J]. 中华医院管理杂志, 2020, 36(06): 500-503.
27
ORHAN B, SONMEZ D, CUBUKCU H C, et al. The use of preanalytical quality indicators: A Turkish preliminary survey study[J]. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2021, 59(5): 837-843.
28
JOHN G K, FAVALORO E J, AUSTIN S, et al. From errors to excellence: The pre-analytical journey to improved quality in diagnostics. A scoping review[J]. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2025, 63(7): 1243-1259.
29
ZHANG L, JIANG K, CHEN J, et al. Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: A 2020—2023 experience in a Chinese province[J]. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2025, 63(8): 1573-1581.
30
MOONLA K, WIRIYAPRASIT R, APIRATMATEEKUL N, et al. Novel blood collection tubes improve sample preservation in a multicenter study in Thailand[J]. Diagnostics(Basel, Switzerland), 2025, 15(18): 2398.
31
LIPPI G, MATTIUZZI C, FAVALORO E J. Artificial intelligence in the pre-analytical phase: State-of-the art and future perspectives[J]. Journal of medical biochemistry, 2024, 43(1): 1-10.
[1] 曹柳柳, 王佳佳, 武林松, 彭梅, 姜凡. PDCA导向的危急值管理质量提升:安徽省超声科调查干预与数据反馈的实证研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025, 22(07): 628-632.
[2] 赵枫, 肖际东. PDCA循环法在自动乳腺全容积成像诊断乳腺疾病中的应用[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(01): 51-54.
[3] 叶静, 张金钰, 万月婷, 李娜, 庄诗蔚. 膀胱痉挛评分联合改良PDCA循环管理对经尿道铥激光前列腺剜除术后膀胱痉挛发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(03): 291-296.
[4] 陆益, 张威, 邓含, 石晗, 冯钰, 高旭, 吴小凤. 戴明循环与标准化流程改进降低泌尿外科腔内手术围术期低体温发生率[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 598-604.
[5] 胡琴, 向华, 王庆, 吴丹, 李兰. 六西格玛管理法对介入手术患者接台效率的影响[J/OL]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2025, 13(02): 175-178.
[6] 王学晶, 刘向祎, 周允, 汪静, 张传宝, 王治国, 陈文祥. WS/T 408-2024《定量检验程序分析性能验证指南》行业标准解读[J/OL]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2026, 14(02): 104-109.
[7] 张琳茹, 刘恩悦, 王红侠, 邢兴, 刘倩, 杨伏猛. 基于六西格玛模式评价血脂项目的分析性能及其质量控制方案的设计[J/OL]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2025, 13(04): 200-205.
[8] 吴宗勇, 万俊杰, 张晓煜, 林一腾, 张丽, 齐军, 李碧君, 林勇平. 临床检验质量指标限值的设定与应用[J/OL]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2025, 13(03): 129-134.
[9] 吴宗勇, 张晓煜, 万俊杰, 林一腾, 张丽, 齐军, 林勇平. 检验科对外送第三方医学检验实验室检测项目的质量监管[J/OL]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2024, 12(04): 199-203.
[10] 陶莹, 李晓光, 朱桃红, 杨彦, 陈琦. Westgard西格玛规则在中孕期母血清学产前筛查质量管理中的应用[J/OL]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2024, 12(02): 65-69.
[11] 甄拴平, 王华, 朱海鹏, 豆淑媛, 赵雪莲. 基层医院检验危急值管理的实践与探讨[J/OL]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2023, 11(01): 1-4.
[12] 谭俊青, 李晓君, 何宇巍, 李蔼文. 运用PDCA循环提升医院病原微生物实验室生物安全管理的策略[J/OL]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2022, 10(04): 193-198.
[13] 吕玉华, 晁艳, 周厚全, 刘思景, 万泽民, 卢燕君, 林海标. 案例教学法联合PDCA循环管理在临床输血实习教学中的应用[J/OL]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2022, 10(01): 55-58.
[14] 罗明先. 基于PDCA循环的过渡期护理对老年人瓣膜置换术后ICU出科时期的干预效果[J/OL]. 中华老年病研究电子杂志, 2022, 09(02): 31-34.
[15] 芦乙滨, 李梦蝶, 许明. PDCA(计划、执行、检查和处理)循环教学在内科住院医师重症超声指导血流动力学评估培训中的效果评价[J/OL]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2024, 10(04): 224-228.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?