Single Platform Vs Multiple Platform: Which One Better for Resources Effectiveness

• Published in: Indian journal of clinical biochemistry Vol. 34; no. S1; p. S185
• Main Author: Sari, Dewi Yennita
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Springer 24.05.2022
• ISSN: 0970-1915; 0974-0422

In the era of universal health coverage, laboratory is now cost centre rather than become revenue centre. Laboratory must find a way to reduce cost but maintain its quality. Many laboratories using multiple platform for 1 parameter because of many reasons such as using cheaper equipment as back up instrument, for comparing the test result or afraid of reagent supply continuity. We are changing our multiple platform into single platform in 2017. Before 2017, we are using 3 different platform in chemistry analyzer, 2 different platform in hemostasis analyzer, and 2 platform in hematology analyzer. For analyst who responsible for the test we were providing 4 analysts in clinical chemistry, 2 analysts in hematology and 2 analysts in hemostasis. So, we have 8 analyst for taking care of the instrument. In 2017 we were using 1 platform in clinical chemistry, 1 platform in hematology analyzer and 1 platform in hemostasis analyzer. For the analyst we were reducing our resources, only 2 analysts in clinical chemistry, 1 analyst in hematology and 2 analyst in hemostasis. So now we only have 5 analyst for taking care of the instruments and tests, reducing cost in human resources. For cost pertest, in clinical chemistry we can reduce from Rp 7,384.28 pertest to Rp 7,334.42 pertest. In hematology, a slight increment for cost pertest from Rp 20,737.87 to Rp 21,223.55 because we set up to many rerun rules. In hemostasis analyzer, we can cut the cost from Rp 34,544.65 per test to Rp 21,481.44. For 2017-2019 we don't have reagent supply problem, instrument downtime no longer than 2 hours. Single platform are more effective in reducing resources than multiple platform.