Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 1990. Non-laboratory pathology testing. Cat. no. AIHW 246. Canberra: AIHW.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (1990). Non-laboratory pathology testing. Canberra: AIHW.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Non-laboratory pathology testing. AIHW, 1990.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Non-laboratory pathology testing. Canberra: AIHW; 1990.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 1990, Non-laboratory pathology testing, AIHW, Canberra.
Get citations as an Endnote file:
PDF | 4.5Mb
A report by the National Health Technology Advisory Panel (NHTAP).
There has been continued development of analytical systems intended for provision of pathology tests outside the laboratory setting. Such systems include low capital cost analysers and also kits which do not require use of instrumentation.
Use of non laboratory pathology testing (NLPT) has become popular in a number of countries, but in Australia less than one per cent of pathology tests for which Medicare reimbursement is claimed are performed outside the laboratory.
Results from studies in Australia and other countries indicate that levels of analytical performance achieved with NLPT can be unacceptable, particularly if appropriate training and quality control measures are not put in place.
Australian data suggest that general practitioner office pathology could result in a net increase in pathology services and increase costs to the health care system.
Pathology laboratory accreditation schemes cover all NLPT laboratory settings, except home testing, in Victoria, and all services for which a Medicare benefit is payable in the rest of Australia. The Panel considers that all NLPT, with the exception of self testing, should be required to meet the accreditation standards developed by the National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council(NPAAC). This would require State and Territory governments to introduce complementary accreditation provisions.
Educational and quality control programs for non laboratory operators have been developed by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners in association with the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia and the Australian Association of Clinical Biochemists. The Panel sees a need for the expansion of suitable educational material for providers of pathology tests who have not had appropriate training.
Application of accreditation provisions to performance of tests using kits may not be appropriate. Assurance of effective performance of such products may require increased attention to manufacturers' quality control linked to testing and assessment by appropriate agencies.
The Panel considers that while NLPT has potential value in improving diagnostic services, its overall benefit in most situations remains unclear and may be marginal.
The Panel recommends that:
We'd love to know any feedback that you have about the AIHW website, its contents or reports.
The browser you are using to browse this website is outdated and some features may not display properly or be accessible to you. Please use a more recent browser for the best user experience.