Methods: Five key themes were reviewed using existing literature (role of leadership; education, training, and continuing professional development; technology; accreditation, management, and quality standards; and reimbursement systems). A tiered system is described, building on existing proposals. The economic analysis draws on the very limited published studies, combined with expert opinion.

Results: Countries have underinvested in pathology services, with detrimental effects on health care. The equipment needs for a tier 1 laboratory in a primary health facility are modest ($2-$5,000), compared with $150,000 to $200,000 in a district hospital, and higher in a referral hospital (depending on tests undertaken). Access to a national (or regional) specialized laboratory undertaking disease surveillance and registry is important. Recurrent costs of appropriate laboratories in district and referral hospitals are around 6% of the hospital budget in midsized hospitals and likely decline in the largest hospitals. Primary health facilities rely largely on single-use tests.

Methods: Cost and workload data were obtained from hospital records for 2015. Time allocation of staff between laboratory testing and other activities was determined using assumptions from published workload studies.

Results: The laboratory received 20,093 cases for testing in 2015, and total expenditures were US $1.20 million, ie, $61.97 per case. The anatomic pathology laboratory accounted for 5.2% of the laboratory budget at the hospital, compared to 64.3% for the clinical laboratory and 30.5% for the microbiology laboratory. We provide comparisons to a similar laboratory in the United States.

METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed to cytopathology laboratories in 24 Asia-Pacific countries to explore the impact of restrictive measures on access to health care, use of general and personal protective equipment (PPE), and changes in cytology workflow and workload from February to April 2020.

RESULTS: A total of 167 cytopathology laboratories from 24 countries responded to the survey; the majority reported that restrictive measures that limited the accessibility of health care services had been implemented in their cities and/or countries (80.8%) and their hospitals (83.8%). The respondents noted that COVID-19 had an impact on the cytologic workflow as well as the workload. Approximately one-half of the participants reported the implementation of new biosafety protocols (54.5%) as well as improvements in laboratory facilities (47.3%). Rearrangement or redeployment of the workforce was reported in 53.3% and 34.1% of laboratories, respectively. The majority of the respondents reported a significant reduction (>10%) in caseload associated with both gynecological (82.0%) and nongynecological specimens (78.4%). Most laboratories reported no significant change in the malignancy rates of both gynecological (67.7%) and nongynecological specimens (58.7%) compared with the same period in 2019.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: An e-mail invitation to participate in an online survey was sent to hospital laboratories in Malaysia (n=140). Questions regarding methods for measuring creatinine, equations for calculating eGFR, eGFR reporting, the terminology used in reporting urine albumin, types of samples and the cut-off values used for normal albuminuria.

RESULTS: A total of 42/140 (30%) laboratories answered the questionnaire. The prevalent method used for serum creatinine measurement was the Jaffé method (88.1%) traceable to isotope-dilution mass spectrometry. eGFR was reported along with serum creatinine by 61.9% of laboratories while 33.3% of laboratories report eGFR on request. The formula used for eGFR reporting was mainly MDRD (64.3%) and results were reported as exact numbers even when the eGFR was <60 ml/min/1.73m2. The term microalbumin is still used by 83.3% of laboratories. There is a large heterogeneity among the labs regarding the type of sample recommended for measuring urine albumin, reference interval and reporting units.