Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter February 11, 2015

Assessing quality on the Sigma scale from proficiency testing and external quality assessment surveys

  • James O. Westgard EMAIL logo and Sten A. Westgard

Abstract

Background: There is a need to assess the quality being achieved for laboratory examinations that are being utilized to support evidence-based clinical guidelines. Application of Six Sigma concepts and metrics can provide an objective assessment of the current analytical quality of different examination procedures.

Methods: A “Sigma Proficiency Assessment Chart” can be constructed for data obtained from proficiency testing and external quality assessment surveys to evaluate the observed imprecision and bias of method subgroups and determine quality on the Sigma scale.

Results: Data for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from a 2014 survey by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) demonstrates that approximately two-thirds of the examination subgroups provide only two-Sigma quality when evaluated against the CAP requirement of an allowable total error of 6.0%. The weighted averages were 1.46 Sigma for a survey sample with an assigned value of 6.49% Hb (average bias 2.31%, CV 2.87%), 1.45 Sigma at 6.97% Hb (average bias 2.29%, CV 2.81%), and 1.75 at 9.65% Hb (average bias 1.55%, CV 2.71%). Maximum biases for examination subgroups were 5.7%, 5.8%, and 4.1%, respectively.

Conclusions: Assessment of quality on the Sigma scale provides evidence of the analytical performance that is being achieved relative to requirements for intended use and should be useful for identifying and prioritizing improvements that are needed in the analytical quality of laboratory examinations. In spite of global and national standardization programs, bias is still a critical limitation of current HbA1c examination procedures.


Corresponding author: James O. Westgard, Westgard QC, Inc., 7614 Gray Fox Trail, Madison, WI 53717, USA, Phone: +1 608 833 4718, E-mail: ; and Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

References

1. Plebani M. The CCLM contribution to improvements in quality and patient safety. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:39–46.10.1515/cclm-2012-0094Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Westgard JO. Six Sigma quality design & control, 2nd ed. Madison WI: Westgard QC, Inc., 2006.Search in Google Scholar

3. Westgard JO. Basic method validation, 3rd ed. Madison WI: Westgard QC, Inc., 2008.Search in Google Scholar

4. Westgard JO. Basic QC practices, 3rd ed. Madison WI: Westgard QC, Inc., 2010.Search in Google Scholar

5. Westgard JO. Six Sigma risk analysis. Madison WI: Westgard QC, Inc., 2011.Search in Google Scholar

6. Westgard JO, Westgard SA. The quality of laboratory testing today: an assessment of sigma metrics for analytical quality using performance data from proficiency testing surveys and the CLIA criteria for acceptable performance. Am J Clin Pathol 2006;125:343–54.10.1309/V50H4FRVVWX12C79Search in Google Scholar

7. Westgard JO, Westgard SA. Basic quality management systems: essentials for quality management in the medical laboratory. Madison WI: Westgard QC, Inc., 2014:234–5.Search in Google Scholar

8. NGSP website. Available from: www.ngsp.org. Accessed 1 December, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

9. Bruns DE, Boyd JC. Few point-of-care hemoglobin A1c assay methods meet clinical needs. Clin Chem 2010;56:4–6.10.1373/clinchem.2009.139865Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Thienpont LM, Van Utfanghe K, Cabaleiro DR. Metrological traceablity of calibration in the estimation and use of common medical decision-making criteria. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004;42:842–50.10.1515/CCLM.2004.138Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Magnusson B, Ellison SL. Treatment of uncorrected measurement bias in uncertainty estimation for chemical measurements. Anal Bioanal Chem 2008;390:201–13.10.1007/s00216-007-1693-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Woolworth A, Korpi-Steiner N, Miller JJ, Rao LV, Yundt-Pacheco J, Kuchipudi L, et al. Utilization of assay performance characteristics to estimate Hemoglobin A1c result reliability. Clin Chem 2014;60:1073–9.10.1373/clinchem.2013.220772Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Lenters-Westra E, Slingerland RJ. Three of 7 hemoglobin A1c point-of-care instruments do not meet generally accepted analytical performance criteria. Clin Chem 2014;60:1062–72.10.1373/clinchem.2014.224311Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Jassam N, Yundt-Pacheco J, Jansen R, Thomas A, Barth JH. Can current analytical quality performance of UK clinical laboratories support evidence-based guidelines for diabetes and ischaemic heart disease? – A pilot study and a proposal. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:1579–84.10.1515/cclm-2012-0840Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2014-12-15
Accepted: 2015-1-16
Published Online: 2015-2-11
Published in Print: 2015-9-1

©2015 by De Gruyter

Downloaded on 29.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2014-1241/html
Scroll to top button