Causes of Unsatisfactory Performance in Proficiency Testing

Abstract

Proficiency testing (PT) provides a measure of the effectiveness of laboratory quality assurance programs. Test reports are released from processes that the laboratory judges to be in conformance with quality specifications; an evaluation of unsatisfactory performance (UNSAT) by a PT provider is an unexpected outcome for the laboratory. An understanding of the root cause(s) of testing errors provides an opportunity for the continuous improvement of laboratory services. We used participant data from the New York State Department of Health PT program to characterize the quality of testing in the toxicology specialty. Outcomes from laboratory investigations into causes of UNSAT and information on quality control practices collected from all program participants were used to identify the root causes of error. Two classes of error were encountered: spurious test results caused by lapses in standard operating procedures and instrument malfunctions (300 per million assays) and common-cause analytic error (7000 per million assays or 0.7% rate of UNSAT). Causes of spurious results included inaccurate mathematical correction for specimen dilution, misinterpretation of instrument codes, and instrument sampling errors. Calibration drift was most frequently cited as the common-cause analytic error. Approximately one-half of the laboratories used an allowable error for the quality control of analytical systems that exceeded the threshold error specified by manufacturers for stable instrument performance. The causes of spurious results suggest the need for ongoing competency testing of analysts where analyst intervention is required in an otherwise automated process, and for continued diligence in mistake-proofing instrument design. The intrinsic quality of laboratory testing is unlikely to improve until the allowable error in quality control is consistent with manufacturer specifications for stable system performance.