## 3 Results and Discussion
### Compliance with the Turnaround Times  
The turnaround time [29] is the time required for a result to be used by the petitioning doctor, considered between the entrance of the sample to the laboratory and the inclusion of the result in the electronic clinical history, available to be read by the petitioner. For the analytic parameters included in this article, the LRC has the turnaround time obtained from health care centers and outpatient clinics. The physician has available the analytical results in the computerized clinical history with 92% of the measurements within the established range, see Table 1. It measures the percentages of non-compliance and we evaluate them by probability of occurrence [30] see Figure 4. Figure 4 shows the representations of the monthly evolution of all parameters. To establish if there are significant differences among the obtained values during the period between January and December of 2014, excluding August and comparing it with the values obtained during August, it analyzed the number of measurements that do not meet the turnaround times for each period and the total delivered results. We applied the Bi nominal distribution model, obtaining the non-compliance percentage. In Figure 4, it can see the evolution of the percentage of noncompliance of the turnaround time is shown, in which peaks of noncompliance along the months can be observed. In the figure, one can also see specific cases of non-compliance in a number than can reach up to 14% of one specific parameter. One can also see that the daily incidents that affect the turnaround time are from the noncompliance turnaround delivery times of reagent, as is the case in January and April, to the technical malfunctions experienced in the autoanalyzer during June. Over the months, it can see different percentages of noncompliance that never exceed the 2% and that are caused by several causes of heterogeneous type. Where \(p/n\) are the defects per measurement; \(\overset{-}{P}\), average probability is 0.5%; \(n\), the number of samples 2607; and the limits of control are calculated from the following Equations (1) and (2):  
\[LSC=np+3\times\sqrt{np}\times(1-p)=0.017\equiv 1.7\% \tag{1}\]  
\[LIC=np-3\times\sqrt{np}\times(1-p)=-0.001\equiv-0.1\% \tag{2}\]  
By checking the prior graphics, it can see that during the period January-November, without including August, which is the subject of this analysis, the average noncompliance is off 0.5% of the measurements, being having the upper control limit of 1.7% and the lower limit of 0.1%. In the graphic, it can also see that two parameters exceed the 10% limit: one in the month of January and another one in the month of July. These turnaround times correspond to the parameters of Ac against the against surface Hepatitis B antigen serum of the month of January, with a compliance of 87.9% (12.1% of noncompliance), the CEA of the month of July with a compliance of 87.5% (12.5% of noncompliance), and of the PSA of the month of July with a compliance of 86.3% (13.7% of noncompliance). In the analyzed period of the month of August (see Figure 5), all the turnaround times are within the goals-higher than 90%, with an average of 0.47% of probability of occurrence (noncompliance), an upper control limit of 1.7% and a lower control limit off -1.5%. Figure 4: Analysis with probability of occurrence of low probability events according to [PERSON] [30]. Probability of occurrence of measurements that exceeded the turnaround time per parameter during the analyzed month. Figure 5: Analysis with probability of occurrence of low probability events according to [PERSON] [30]. Probability of occurrence of measurements that exceeded the turnaround time per parameter during the month of August. On the 30 th and the 31 st it didn’t have not any activity (Saturday, Sunday).