The correlation of laboratory performance in proficiency testing with other QA characteristics

Abstract

Although it seems self-evident that proficiency testing (PT) and accreditation can be expected to improve quality, their relative benefits remain uncertain as does their efficacy. The study reported here examines the following issues: (a) Why do laboratories take part in PT schemes? (b) How does participation in PT fit in with a laboratory's overall quality assurance (QA) system? (c) Is there a link between a laboratory's performance in specific PT and it's QA system? (d) How does PT performance change with time and how do laboratories respond to poor performance? The overall conclusion is that there is no evidence from the present study that laboratories with third-party assessment (accreditation and certification) perform any better in PT than laboratories without. The validity of this conclusion and its significance for the future design and operation of such schemes requires further investigation. In particular, study is required of the degree to which good performance in open PT correlates with blind PT performance, where laboratories are not aware that the samples being analysed are part of a quality assessment exercise.