GLI GLI Quality Tool
GLI Quality Tool — Version 2.0

Designing a TB lab stakeholder engagement plan

The GLI Quality Tool offers a practical roadmap for laboratories building stronger quality management systems through four phases and twelve Quality Systems Essentials. Its phase-specific checklists become more useful when hospital clinicians, laboratory staff and public health officers jointly identify risks, interpret findings and own corrective action, rather than treating quality improvement as a laboratory-only exercise.

A useful TB lab stakeholder engagement plan defines who contributes, which decisions they can influence, how participation will occur and how commitments will be tracked. In Australia, this means connecting hospital and public health functions across state and territory jurisdictions while accounting for a mixed public and private pathology market and different service conditions in metropolitan, regional and remote networks.

Define outcomes and stakeholder influence

Begin with a short purpose statement built around measurable outcomes: earlier diagnosis, safe and reliable testing, complete notification, faster reporting of resistance and coordinated follow-up. Specify whether the group can change procedures, testing algorithms, staffing, procurement or escalation pathways. This prevents broad consultation from being mistaken for decision-making and gives each participant a clear reason to engage.

Map stakeholders by role and influence. Include emergency and respiratory clinicians, infectious-disease specialists, pathology leaders, scientists, collection staff, infection prevention, public health officers, referral laboratories, digital and data teams, procurement, and representatives of people affected by TB. In Melbourne and Sydney, a map may span a teaching hospital, private pathology providers and a state reference laboratory; elsewhere, the same functions may sit within one regional service.

Prioritise stakeholders according to their influence over the diagnostic pathway, the likelihood of harm if they are absent and their readiness to act. Give patient and community representatives a defined role early, not a consultation slot after technical decisions are complete. The resulting map should show an executive sponsor, an engagement lead, decision owners and contributors, with named deputies for periods of leave or competing workload.

Establish governance and communication agreements

Establish a small steering group with authority to approve changes and representatives able to surface operational barriers. A workable core usually includes a senior clinician, a laboratory manager or quality lead, a public health officer, an infection-prevention representative and a community or consumer representative. Rotate attendance at working sessions as needed, but keep accountability for decisions and actions stable.

Adapt the arrangements to local customs rather than assuming a single national meeting style. Some hospital teams prefer brief multidisciplinary huddles, while public health teams may rely on surveillance meetings and written briefings. Agree on the pace, format, language and escalation route that suit participants, and provide interpreters, accessible materials and protected time for staff working shifts in Darwin, Perth and smaller regional centres.

Set a communication map that links routine laboratory updates to clinical and public health channels, including secure messaging, electronic results, meeting rounds and a documented route for urgent findings. Clarify which source is authoritative when guidance changes. Record attendance, decisions, dissent and due dates in a shared action register, and circulate a concise summary promptly so that senior stakeholders do not depend on hallway conversations.

Create inclusive routes to participation

Design participation around contribution, influence and access rather than sending the same invitation to everyone. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities should be represented through appropriately governed relationships with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services where relevant, local clinicians and community organisations, with cultural safety and community governance of data and public messaging built into preparation and feedback.

A complete stakeholder map should include:

Match the method to the task. Information sharing suits policy updates, co-design sessions suit new diagnostic or referral pathways, and confidential interviews can uncover reasons clinicians bypass or delay a recommended process. A practical engagement schedule might include:

Keep participation accessible. Offer evening or telehealth options, distribute papers in advance, use plain language and avoid unexplained technical abbreviations, and reimburse community members for their time where funding permits. Close the loop by publishing what was heard, what changed and why an issue remains under consideration. People are more likely to contribute when earlier input demonstrably influenced practice.

Connect engagement to laboratory quality work

Connect every engagement topic to the GLI Quality Tool’s phases and relevant Quality Systems Essentials. Safety topics can include sharps controls, laboratory layout, transport exposure and infection prevention. Personnel topics can cover recruitment, supervision and competency; equipment topics can cover maintenance, calibration and user access; documentation topics can cover request forms, result reports and record retention.

Make discussions concrete by bringing a short dashboard, a specimen or request form, a de-identified case and one recent incident or near miss. For example, a joint review might trace a patient from referral through collection, molecular testing, interpretation, notification and clinical action. The group can identify where ownership becomes unclear, where a hand-off fails and which control would prevent recurrence.

Use the engagement sessions to agree on evidence, not merely opinions. Where accreditation is relevant, align actions with the laboratory’s NATA ISO 15189 obligations and existing state, territory and hospital procedures. When gaps involve operation of a molecular assay, clinical interpretation or result reporting, molecular platform training can support shared, role-based competency discussions without assigning the gap solely to laboratory staff.

Measure commitments and keep the plan alive

Track a small set of indicators that combine participation, process quality and patient-level outcomes. Useful measures include the percentage of relevant clinicians attending, actions closed by the agreed date, specimen rejection rates, turnaround time for urgent tests, completeness of notifications, the proportion of positive results with documented clinical follow-up, and time from a critical result to clinical acknowledgement. Avoid using meeting attendance as the main measure of success.

Maintain an evidence file showing the meeting schedule, stakeholder map, decisions, action register, review data and changes made to standard operating procedures. The GLI Quality Tool’s quality management guidance provides a coherent place to connect these records with checklists and improvement cycles. This makes the engagement plan auditable and allows findings from one phase to inform the next rather than restarting the conversation.

Review performance quarterly and after any major service, staffing or platform change. Recheck whether the right people are represented, whether actions are blocked by procurement, staffing or policy, and whether community members receive a clear response. Record changes to the plan itself. A named owner should chair the review, publish the revised priorities and escalate persistent risks through the laboratory’s existing governance structure.

Start the plan with a 90-day launch. Ask the sponsor and engagement lead to confirm the purpose, decision rights, core stakeholder group and two priority diagnostic journeys, then schedule a cross-sector mapping session with hospital, laboratory and public health participants. Use the GLI checklists to prepare examples and keep the first decisions realistic and within local control.

The first session should produce an approved stakeholder map, a communication calendar, three or four measurable priorities, named action owners and the date of the next review. Add community representation and the required links to quality records before the plan is considered complete. Book that first session now, assign the sponsor and begin with the patient journey most likely to cause delayed diagnosis or missed public health action.