Abstract
Background: The implementation of national and international guidelines is beginning to standardise clinical practice. However, since many guidelines have decision limits based on laboratory tests, there is an urgent need to ensure that different laboratories obtain the same analytical result on any sample. A scientifically-based quality control process will be a pre-requisite to provide this level of analytical performance which will support evidence-based guidelines and movement of patients across boundaries while maintaining standardised outcomes. We discuss the finding of a pilot study performed to assess UK clinical laboratories readiness to work to a higher grade quality specifications such as biological variation-based quality specifications.
Methods: Internal quality control (IQC) data for HbA1c, glucose, creatinine, cholesterol and high density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol were collected from UK laboratories participating in the Bio-Rad Unity QC programme. The median of the coefficient of variation (CV%) of the participating laboratories was evaluated against the CV% based on biological variation.
Results: Except creatinine, the other four analytes had a variable degree of compliance with the biological variation-based quality specifications. More than 75% of the laboratories met the biological variation-based quality specifications for glucose, cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol. Slightly over 50% of the laboratories met the analytical goal for HBA1c. Only one analyte (cholesterol) had a performance achieving the higher quality specifications consistent with 5σ.
Conclusions: Our data from IQC do not consistently demonstrate that the results from clinical laboratories meet evidence-based quality specifications. Therefore, we propose that a graded scale of quality specifications may be needed at this stage.
References
1. The minimal performance standards pilot. NQAAP Chem Pathol – July 2010, p. 1–17. Available at: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=minimum+analytical+performance+standards+NQAAP&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0i22i30j0i13i5i30.1922.12547.0.17188.29.27.1.1.1.0.110.2139.26j1.27.0...0.0...1c.1.-49Dof5JaPk&oq=minimum+analytical+performance+standards+NQAAP. Accessed 27 February, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
2. Beastall GH. The modernisation of pathology and laboratory medicine in the UK: networking into the future. Clin Biochem Rev 2008;29:3–10.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) Ltd. Standards for the medical laboratory, version 2.00, September 2007, F3: Assuring the quality of examination.Search in Google Scholar
4. Housley D, Kearney E, English E, Smith N, Teal T, Mazurkiewicz J, et al. Audit of internal quality control practice and processes in the south-east of England and suggested regional standards. Ann Clin Biochem 2008;45:135–9.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000254872000004&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f310.1258/acb.2007.007028Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Fraser CG, Hyltoft Petersen P, Libeer JC, Ricos C. Proposal for setting generally applicable quality goals solely based on biology. Ann Clin Biochem 1997;34:8–12.10.1177/000456329703400103Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. QC applications. Available from: http://www.westgard.com/hba1c-8180v.htm#metrics. Accessed 2 December, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
7. Westgard lesson. Six sigma quality management and Desirable laboratory precision. Available from: http://www.westgard.com/essay35.htm. Accessed 2 November, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
8. Myers GL, Miller WG, Coresh J, Fleming J, Greenberg N, Greene T, et al. Recommendations for improving serum creatinine measurement: a report from the laboratory working group of the national kidney disease education program. Clin Chem 2006;52:5–18.10.1373/clinchem.2005.0525144Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Jassam N, Lindsay C, Harrison K, Thompson D, Bosomworth MP, Barth JH. The implementation of a system for managing analytical quality in networked laboratories. Ann Clin Biochem 2011;48:136–46.10.1258/acb.2010.010005http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000299867100009&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Jassam N, Bosomworth M, Thompson D, Lindsay C, Barth JH. Managing quality in networked laboratories: a system for managing quality in networked laboratories – statistical control rules design. Available from: http://www.westgard.com/networked-lab-quality.htm. Accessed 8 July, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
11. Ricós C, Ramón F, Salas A, Buño A, Calafell R, Morancho J, et al. Minimum analytical quality specifications of inter-laboratory comparisons: agreement among Spanish EQAP organizers. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:455–61.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000303222700008&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3Search in Google Scholar
12. Ricós C, Doménech MV, PerichC. Analytical quality specifications for common reference intervals. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004;42:858–62.10.1515/CCLM.2004.140Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Baadenhuijsen H, Steigstra H, Cobbaert C, Kuypers A, Weykamp, Jansen R. Commutability assessment of potential reference materials using a multicenter split-patient-sample between-field-methods (twin-study) design: study within the framework of the Dutch project “Calibration 2000”. Clin Chem 2002;48:1520–5.10.1093/clinchem/48.9.1520Search in Google Scholar
14. Miller GW, Jones GR, Horowitz GL, Weykamp C. Proficiency testing/external quality assessment: current challenges and future directions. Clin Chem 2011;57:1670–80.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000298119600008&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f310.1373/clinchem.2011.168641Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston
