A model for managing quality control for a network of clinical chemistry instruments measuring the same analyte

Author:

Giannoli Jean-Marc1,Bernard Mathieu2,L’Hirondel Julien3,Heim André4,Badrick Tony5ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Biogroup, Technical Direction , Lyon , France

2. Bioesterel-Biogroup – Technical Platform , Sanary sur Mer , France

3. Laborizon Bretagne-Biogroup – Technical Platform , Nantes , France

4. Roche Diagnostics, Accreditation Consultant , Meylan , France

5. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs , Sydney , NSW , Australia

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Monitoring quality control for a laboratory or network with multiple instruments measuring the same analyte is challenging. We present a retrospective assessment of a method to detect medically significant out-of-control error conditions across a group of instruments measuring the same analyte. The purpose of the model was to ensure that results from any of several instruments measuring the same analytes in a laboratory or a network of laboratories provide comparable results and reduce patient risk. Limited literature has described how to manage QC in these very common situations. Methods Single Levey–Jennings control charts were designed using peer group target mean and control limits for five common clinical chemistry analytes in a network of eight analyzers in two different geographical sites. The QC rules used were 13s/22s/R4s, with the mean being a peer group mean derived from a large population of the same instrument and the same QC batch mean and a group CV. The peer group data used to set the target means and limits were from a quality assurance program supplied by the instrument supplier. Both statistical and clinical assessments of significance were used to evaluate QC failure. Instrument bias was continually monitored. Results It was demonstrated that the biases of each instrument were not statistically or clinically different compared to the peer group’s average over six months from February 2023 until July 2023. Over this period, the error rate determined by the QC model was consistent with statistical expectations for the 13s/22s/R4s rule. There were no external quality assurance failures, and no detected error exceeded the TEa (medical impact). Thus, the combined statistical/clinical assessment reduced unnecessary recalibrations and the need to amend results. Conclusions This paper describes the successful implementation of a quality control model for monitoring a network of instruments, measuring the same analytes and using externally provided quality control targets. The model continually assesses individual instrument bias and imprecision while ensuring all instruments in the network meet clinical goals for quality. The focus of this approach is on detecting medically significant out-of-control error conditions.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Biochemistry (medical),Clinical Biochemistry,General Medicine

Reference21 articles.

1. Westgard, JO. Statistical quality control procedures. Clin Lab Med 2013;33:111–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2012.10.004.

2. Åsberg, A, Solem, KB, Mikkelsen, G. Allowable systematic difference between two instruments measuring the same analyte. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2014;74:588–90. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365513.2014.921836.

3. Nam, Y, Lee, JH, Kim, SM, Jun, SH, Song, SH, Lee, K, et al.. Periodic comparability verification and within-laboratory harmonization of clinical chemistry laboratory results at a large healthcare center with multiple instruments. Ann Lab Med 2021;42:150–9. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2022.42.2.150.

4. Parvin, C, Kuchipudi, L, Yundt-Pacheco, J. Designing QC rules in the presence of laboratory bias: should a QC rule be centered on the instrument’s mean or the reference mean? [Internet] ; 2019. https://www.qcnet.com/Portals/0/Events/AACCAbstPoster2012.pdf [Accessed 6 Jun 2022].

5. Kuchipudi, LS, Yundt-Pacheco, J, Parvin, CA. Designing QC rules for multiple instruments: should a QC rule be centered on individual instrument means or on a fixed mean? Should the limits be based on individual instrument SDs or on a fixed SD? [Internet]; 2019. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Designing-QC-Rules-for-Multiple-Instruments-%3A-a-QC-Kuchipudi-Yundt-Pacheco/3bba0f0f094da9c870215821d3e0551cc9a41557 [Accessed 16 Jan 2023].

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3