LSS Committee
The LSS Committee strengthens quality management systems by promoting the sustainability of public health laboratory systems and supporting the improvement of accuracy and reliability of laboratory results and services in member laboratories. The Committee identifies and develops tools and resources to optimize the performance quality of member laboratories and their system.
Priorities
Support national, state, local and regional public health laboratory system models
Develop a mechanism for measuring the two Healthy People 2030 developmental objectives on laboratory services
Support continuous quality improvement in member laboratories by providing tools, training, evaluation and consultation to meet regulatory requirements
Function as a liaison between public health laboratories, regulatory agencies, professional organizations and other stakeholders, i.e. CMS and PHAB
LSS Committee Quality Systems Publications
For more information, contact Tina Su, MPH, manager, Quality Systems and Analytics, 240.485.2729, bertina.su@aphl.org.
Knowledge Management Committee
Knowledge management is "the process of capturing, developing, sharing and effectively using organizational knowledge."* The Knowledge Management Committee (KMC) provides guidance on effective management and use of APHL information resources for members to improve laboratory processes, procedures and systems. The committee adapts, develops, collects, organizes, and disseminates tools to promote public health practice.
Priorities
Collect, develop, and introduce Knowledge Management (KM) practices and tools to improve laboratory management
Guide and support the Quality Systems & Analytics (QSA) program on interpretation of findings from analyzing different APHL surveys
Promote the use of APHL resources including tools and data driven dashboards
Resources
For more information, contact Andrea Wright, specialist, Quality Systems and Analytics, 240.485.2756 andrea.wright@aphl.org
Footnotes
* Davenport, Thomas H. (1994). "Saving IT's Soul: Human Centered Information Management." Harvard Business Review 72 (2): 119–131