Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 56, Issue 4

Issues

Can a combination of average of normals and “real time” External Quality Assurance replace Internal Quality Control?

Tony Badrick / Peter Graham
Published Online: 2017-09-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2017-0115

Abstract

Internal Quality Control and External Quality Assurance are separate but related processes that have developed independently in laboratory medicine over many years. They have different sample frequencies, statistical interpretations and immediacy. Both processes have evolved absorbing new understandings of the concept of laboratory error, sample material matrix and assay capability. However, we do not believe at the coalface that either process has led to much improvement in patient outcomes recently. It is the increasing reliability and automation of analytical platforms along with improved stability of reagents that has reduced systematic and random error, which in turn has minimised the risk of running less frequent IQC. We suggest that it is time to rethink the role of both these processes and unite them into a single approach using an Average of Normals model supported by more frequent External Quality Assurance samples. This new paradigm may lead to less confusion for laboratory staff and quicker responses to and identification of out of control situations.

Keywords: frequency of quality control samples; quality assurance; real-time EQA

References

  • 1.

    International Organisation for Standardisation ISO 15189. Medical laboratories – Particular requirements for quality and competence. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?Csnumber=56115. Accessed 3 Feb 2017.

  • 2.

    Fleming JK, Katayev A. Changing the paradigm of laboratory quality control through implementation of real-time test results monitoring: for patients by patients. Clin Biochem 2015;48:508–13.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Ng D, Polito FA, Cervinski MA. Optimization of a moving averages program using a simulated annealing algorithm: the goal is to monitor the process not the patients. Clin Chem 2016;62:1361–71.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Liu J, Tan CH, Loh TP, Badrick T. Verification of out-of-control situations detected by “average of normal” approach. Clin Biochem 2016;49:1248–53.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Jones G, Calleja J, Chesher D, Parvin C, Yundt-Pacheo J, Mackay M, et al. Collective opinion paper on a 2013 AACB workshop of experts seeking harmonisation of approaches to setting a laboratory quality control policy. Clin Biochem Rev 2015:36:87–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Howanitz PJ, Tetrault GA, Steindel SJ. Clinical laboratory quality control: a costly process now out of control. Clin Chim Acta 1997;260:163–74.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Litten J. Applying sigma metrics to reduce outliers. Clin Lab Med 2017;37:177–86.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Sturgeon CM. External quality assessment of hormone determinations. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;127:803–22.Google Scholar

  • 9.

    Parvin C. Assessing the impact of the frequency of quality control testing on the quality of reported patient results. Clin Chem 2008;54:2049–54.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Liu J, Tan CH, Badrick T, Loh TP. Moving sum of number of positive patient result as a quality control tool. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:1709–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Miller WG, Jones GR, Horowitz GL, Weykamp C. Proficiency testing/external quality assessment: current challenges and future directions. Clin Chem 2011;57:1670–80.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Miller WG. Specimen materials, target values and commutability for external quality assessment (proficiency testing) schemes. Clin Chim Acta 2003;327:25–37.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Rej R, Norton-Wenzel CS. Assessing analytical accuracy through proficiency testing: have the effects of matrix been overstated? Clin Chem 2015;61:433–4.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Westgard JO, Westgard SA. The quality of laboratory testing today: an assessment of σ metrics for analytic quality using performance data from proficiency testing surveys and the CLIA criteria for acceptable performance. Am J Clin Path 2015;125:343–54.Google Scholar

  • 15.

    Matar G, Poggi B, Meley R, Bon C, Chardon L, Chikh K, et al. Uncertainty in measurement for 43 biochemistry, immunoassay, and hemostasis routine analytes evaluated by a method using only external quality assessment data. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1725–36.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    Liu J, Han CH, Loh TP, Badrick T. Detecting long-term drift in reagent lots. Clin Chem 2015;61:1292–8.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 17.

    Bais R. Use of capability index to improve laboratory analytical performance. Clin Biochem Rev 2008;29:S27–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 18.

    De Grande L, Goossens K, Van Uytfanghe K, Stöckl D, Thienpont L. The empower project – a new way of assessing and monitoring test comparability and stability. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:1197–204.Web of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 19.

    Mackay M, Hegedus G, Badrick T. A simple matrix of analytical performance to identify at assays that risk patients using External Quality Assurance program data. Clin Biochem 2016;49:596–600.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 20.

    Tolan NV, Parnas ML, Baudhuin LM, Cervinski MA, Chan AS, Holmes DT, et al. “Big data” in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem. 2015;61:1433–40.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-02-08

Accepted: 2017-08-09

Published Online: 2017-09-13

Published in Print: 2018-03-28


Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages 549–553, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2017-0115.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Tony Badrick, Mark Cervinski, and Tze Ping Loh
Clinical Biochemistry, 2018
[2]
Huub H. van Rossum
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 2018, Volume 0, Number 0
[3]
Wilson Punyalack, Peter Graham, and Tony Badrick
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 2018, Volume 56, Number 9, Page e226

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in