External Quality Assessment Organizers Research Articles

An improved implementation of metrological traceability concepts is needed to benefit from standardization of laboratory results.

Non-harmonization of laboratory results represents a concrete risk for patient safety. To avoid harms, it is agreed that measurements by in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD-MD) on clinical samples should be traceable to higher-order references and adjusted to give the same result. However, metrological traceability is not a formal claim and has to be correctly implemented, which in practice does not happen for a non-negligible number of measurands. Stakeholders, such as higher-order reference providers, IVD manufacturers, and External Quality Assessment organizers, have major responsibilities and should improve their contribution by unambiguously and rigorously applying what is described in the International Organization for Standardization 17511:2020 standard and other documents provided by the international scientific bodies, such as Joint Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine and IFCC. For their part, laboratory professionals should take responsibility to abandon non-selective methods and move to IVD-MDs displaying proper selectivity, which is one of the indispensable prerequisites for the correct implementation of metrological traceability. The practicality of metrological traceability concepts is not impossible but relevant education and appropriate training of all involved stakeholders are essential to obtain the expected benefits in terms of standardization.

Schemes and Performance Evaluation Criteria of Korean Association of External Quality Assessment (KEQAS) for Improving Laboratory Testing.

External quality assessment (EQA) is important for evaluating clinical laboratories and enhancing their testing quality. EQA schemes are variable; thus, it is crucial that the EQA organizers share their experiences to continuously improve the EQA scheme. The Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service (KEQAS) has been the leading, authorized EQA institute for the standardization and quality management of laboratory testing in Korean medical institutions since 1976. The EQA scheme underwent a major change in 2016, and the number of EQA programs increased significantly since then. The key changes implemented in EQA scheme include a fully computerized assessment to accelerate feedback and unification of the testing and reporting methods. We provide an overview of the EQA schemes and performance evaluation criteria of the KEQAS and suggest directions for achieving the global harmonization of EQA.

Quality assessment of interpretative commenting and competency comparison of comment providers in China.

Background This study aimed to evaluate the ability of comment providers who were responsible for interpreting results in clinical laboratories in China and to improve the quality of interpretative comments. Methods Basic information and interpretative comments for five cases of 1912 routine chemistry External Quality Assessment (EQA) participant laboratories were collected by web-based EQA system in May 2018. EQA organizers assigned scores to each key phrase of comments based on predetermined marking scale and calculated total scores for each participant's answer. Final scores and ranking were calculated according to scores of cases. Finally, we comprehensively analyzed the type of hospital and the professional title of participants. Results In total, 772 clinical laboratories, 1472 participants, from different Chinese provinces submitted interpretative comments. Median scores, interquartile ranges and score ranges of the five cases were 13 (11-15, 1-20), 13 (10-16, 0-20), 15 (12-17, 0-21), 7 (5-9, -2 to 14) and 12 (10-13, -2 to 18). The final scores and ranking of participants that came from tertiary hospitals were higher than those from secondary and other hospitals; however, there were no significant differences (0.774). When grouped by professional title, we found that although no significant variability existed among senior, intermediate, junior and others (0.699), it existed between laboratory physicians and technicians, as the median final scores of the former were higher than the latter. Conclusions Practice and quality of interpretative comments are indeed different among different laboratories and participants in China. Laboratories should train and assess the interpretative ability of personnel. EQA organizers should also improve the scoring method and establish peer assessors team through this survey.

EurA1c: The European HbA1c Trial to Investigate the Performance of HbA1c Assays in 2166 Laboratories across 17 Countries and 24 Manufacturers by Use of the IFCC Model for Quality Targets.

A major objective of the IFCC Committee on Education and Use of Biomarkers in Diabetes is to generate awareness and improvement of HbA1c assays through evaluation of the performance by countries and manufacturers. Fresh whole blood and lyophilized hemolysate specimens manufactured from the same pool were used by 17 external quality assessment organizers to evaluate analytical performance of 2166 laboratories. Results were evaluated per country, per manufacturer, and per manufacturer and country combined according to criteria of the IFCC model for quality targets. At the country level with fresh whole blood specimens, 6 countries met the IFCC criterion, 2 did not, and 2 were borderline. With lyophilized hemolysates, 5 countries met the criterion, 2 did not, and 3 were borderline. At the manufacturer level using fresh whole blood specimens, 13 manufacturers met the criterion, 8 did not, and 3 were borderline. Using lyophilized hemolysates, 7 manufacturers met the criterion, 6 did not, and 3 were borderline. In both country and manufacturer groups, the major contribution to total error derived from between-laboratory variation. There were no substantial differences in performance between groups using fresh whole blood or lyophilized hemolysate samples. The state of the art is that 1 of 20 laboratories does not meet the IFCC criterion, but there are substantial differences between country and between manufacturer groups. Efforts to further improve quality should focus on reducing between-laboratory variation. With some limitations, fresh whole blood and well-defined lyophilized specimens are suitable for purpose.

Analytical performance of 17 general chemistry analytes across countries and across manufacturers in the INPUtS project of EQA organizers in Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom and Spain.

Optimum patient care in relation to laboratory medicine is achieved when results of laboratory tests are equivalent, irrespective of the analytical platform used or the country where the laboratory is located. Standardization and harmonization minimize differences and the success of efforts to achieve this can be monitored with international category 1 external quality assessment (EQA) programs. An EQA project with commutable samples, targeted with reference measurement procedures (RMPs) was organized by EQA institutes in Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, UK, and Spain. Results of 17 general chemistry analytes were evaluated across countries and across manufacturers according to performance specifications derived from biological variation (BV). For K, uric acid, glucose, cholesterol and high-density density (HDL) cholesterol, the minimum performance specification was met in all countries and by all manufacturers. For Na, Cl, and Ca, the minimum performance specifications were met by none of the countries and manufacturers. For enzymes, the situation was complicated, as standardization of results of enzymes toward RMPs was still not achieved in 20% of the laboratories and questionable in the remaining 80%. The overall performance of the measurement of 17 general chemistry analytes in European medical laboratories met the minimum performance specifications. In this general picture, there were no significant differences per country and no significant differences per manufacturer. There were major differences between the analytes. There were six analytes for which the minimum quality specifications were not met and manufacturers should improve their performance for these analytes. Standardization of results of enzymes requires ongoing efforts.

VERITAS?: A Time for VERIQAS™ and a new approach to training, education, and the quality assessment of CD4+ T lymphocyte counting (I)

The aim of clinical laboratories is to produce accurate and reproducible results to enable effective and reliable clinical practice and patient management. The standard approach is to use both internal quality control (IQC) and external quality assessment (EQA). IQC serves, in many instances, as a "go, no go" tool to provide real time assurance that instruments and reagent or test systems are performing within defined specifications. EQA however, takes a snapshot at a specific point in time of the full testing process, results are compared to other laboratories performing similar testing but inevitably has some built in delay from sample issue to performance data review. In addition, if IQC or EQA identify areas of concern it can be difficult to determine the exact nature of the problem. In an attempt to address this problem, we have developed an instant QA panel that we have termed VERIQAS™, specifically for CD4(+) T lymphocyte counting, and have undertaken a "proof of principle" pilot study to examine how the use of VERIQAS™ could result in improvement of laboratory performance. In addition, we have examined how this approach could be used as a training and education tool (in a domestic/international setting) and potentially be of value in instrument validation/switch studies (a switch study being defined as a laboratory changing from one method/instrument to a new method/instrument with the VERIQAS™ panel being used as an adjunct to their standard switch study protocol). The basic panel consists of 20 stabilized samples, with predefined CD4(+) T lymphocyte counts, that span low clinically relevant to normal counts, including some blinded replicates (singlet up to quadruplicate combinations). The CD4(+) T lymphocyte target values for each specimen is defined as the trimmed mean ± 2 trimmed standard deviations, where the trimmed values are derived from the CD4(+) T lymphocyte counts reported by the participating centers (~780 laboratories) that receive each UK NEQAS for Leucocyte Immunophenotyping send out. Results for the VERIQAS™ panel were returned online, via a specially designed website, and the participant was provided with an immediate assessment (pass or fail). To date, the panel has been preliminary trialed by eight laboratories to (i) assess pre-EQA qualification (two laboratories); (ii) address performance issues (two laboratories); or (iii) validate new instruments or techniques (four laboratories). Interestingly, even in this pilot study, the panel has been instrumental in identifying specific technical problems in laboratories with EQA performance issues as well as confirming that implementation of new techniques or instruments have been successful. We report here a new and novel "proof of principle" pilot study to quality assessment, that we have termed VERIQAS™, designed to provide instant feedback on performance. Participating laboratories receive 20 "blinded" samples that are in singlet up to quadruplicate combinations. Once a centre reports its results via a website, immediate feedback is provided to both the participant and the EQA organizers, enabling, if required, the initiation of targeted remedial action. We have also shown that this approach has the potential to be used as a tool for prequalification, troubleshooting, training and instrument verification. Pilot phase field trials with VERIQAS™ have shown that the panel can highlight laboratory performance problems, such as suboptimal instrument set up, pipetting and gating strategies, in a rapid and efficient manner. VERIQAS™ will now be introduced, where appropriate, as a second phase study within UK NEQAS for Leucocyte Immunophenotyping to assist those laboratories that have performance issues and also made available to laboratories for training and education of staff and instrument validation studies.

A Review of the Challenge in Measuring Hemoglobin A1c

The attraction of the simple biochemical concept combined with a clinical requirement for a long-term marker of glycolic control in diabetes has made hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) one of the most important assays undertaken in the medical laboratory. The diversity in the biochemistry of glycation, clinical requirements, and management demands has resulted in a broad range of methods being developed since HbA1c was described in the late 1960s. A range of analytic principles are used for the measurement of HbA1c. The charge difference between hemoglobin A0 and HbA1c has been widely utilized to separate these two fractions, most notably found these days in ion-exchange high-performance liquid chromatography systems; the difference in molecular structure (affinity chromatography and immunochemical methods) are becoming widely available. Different results found in different laboratories using a variety of HbA1c analyses resulted in the need for standardization, most notably in the United States, Japan, and Sweden. Designated comparison methods are now located in these three countries, but as they are arbitrarily chosen and have differences in specificity, results of these methods and the reference values and action limits of the methods differ and only harmonized HbA1c in specific geographic areas. A reference measurement system within the concept of metrological traceability is now globally accepted as the only valid analytic anchor. However, there is still discussion over the units to be reported. The consensus statement of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), the American Diabetes Association, the International Diabetes Federation, and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes suggests reporting HbA1c in IFCC units (mmol/mol), National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program units (%), and estimated average glucose (either in mg/dl or mmol/liter). The implementation of this consensus statement raised new questions, to be answered in a concerted action of clinicians, biochemists, external quality assessment organizers, patient groups, and manufacturers.

Trueness verification in European external quality assessment schemes: time to care about the quality of the samples

An external quality assessment (EQA) survey on 14 fresh‐frozen, single‐donation sera assigned with reference measurement procedure (RMP) values revealed a mean bias of +5.2% and +3.7% for the cholesterol oxidase and the photometric glucose oxidase procedure groups, respectively. Conversely, on lyophilized sera, the same procedure groups showed almost bias‐free results, the differences from the RMP values being only −0.8% for cholesterol and +0.7% for glucose. These data, which are in fairly good agreement with the literature, suggest the existence of artificial matrix effects in processed materials. Therefore they indicate that, currently, assessment of trueness is hampered in many European EQA schemes, as most of them use lyophilized sera. This approach may give a false impression about the trueness of laboratory results as well as carrying the risk that laboratories calibrated on the RMP values of the survey samples could make errors in patient testing. Consequently, if European EQA is willing to fulfil a post‐market vigilance function of the performance of in vitro diagnostic medical devices, then the time has come to tackle the problem of the quality of the survey samples. EQA organizers urgently need to make an effort to seek out materials that analytically behave like authentic clinical specimens. In the meantime, alternative approaches should be used. Although not ideal, the special survey described in this article is one of the possibilities. Naturally, it implies logistic problems and increased costs for the individual EQA schemes. However, both can be overcome with the cooperation of the predominantly nationally organized schemes.

Combination of analytical quality specifications based on biological within- and between-subject variation.

At a conference on 'Strategies to Set Global Analytical Quality Specifications in Laboratory Medicine' in Stockholm 1999, a hierarchy of models to set analytical quality specifications was decided. The consensus agreement from the conference defined the highest level as 'evaluation of the effect of analytical performance on clinical outcomes in specific clinical settings' and the second level as 'data based on components of biological variation'. Here, the many proposals for analytical quality specifications based on biological variation are examined and the outcomes of the different models for maximum allowable combined analytical imprecision and bias are illustrated graphically. The following models were investigated. (1) The Cotlove et al. (1970) model defining analytical imprecision (%CVA) in relation to the within-subject biological variation (%CV(W-S)) as: %CVA < or = 0.5 x %CV(W-S) (where %CV is percentage coefficient of variation). (2) The Gowans et al. (1988) concept, which defines a functional relationship between analytical imprecision and bias for the maximum allowable combination of errors for the purpose of sharing common reference intervals. (3) The European Group for the Evaluation of Reagents and Analytical Systems in Laboratory Medicine (EGE Lab) Working Group concept, which combines the Cotlove model with the Gowans concept using the maximal acceptable bias. (4) The External Quality Assessment (EQA) Organizers Working Group concept, which is close to the EGE Lab Working Group concept, but follows the Gowans et al. concept of imprecision up to the limit defined by the model of Cotlove et al. (5) The 'three-level' concept classifying analytical quality into three levels: optimum, desirable and minimum. The figures created clearly demonstrated that the results obtained were determined by the basic assumptions made. When %CV(W-S) is small compared with the population-based coefficient of variation [%CV(P) = (%CV2(W-S) +%CV2(B-S))(1/2)], the EGE Lab and EQA Organizers Working Group concepts become similar. Examples of analytical quality specifications based on biological variations are listed and an application on external quality control is illustrated for plasma creatinine.

External quality assessment (EQA) of Belgian clinical laboratories. The telematics paradigm

Technology that enables communication between information systems has recently become cheaper and more powerful. It is therefore timely to consider the effects of the introduction of such techniques in external quality assessment (EQA) schemes on both users and organizers. Traditionally, results are returned to EQA organizers as hand-written numbers on structured forms. These data are then manually entered into a computer. The process is time-consuming, slow (as it depends on the postal service), prone to error at every transcription stage, and expensive, as clerical staff must be employed to input the data. Computer-to-computer communication allows this process to be improved. A telematics system for electronic data interchange has been developed for the Belgian EQA programme and it offers several advantages, such as the use of standardized semantics, expression of results in laboratory familiar units, possible interface with the Laboratory Information System, faster data analysis, shorter report time and long-term performance evaluation.

8. Adding new scopes to traditional EQA schemes emphasizing Quality Improvement

The Nordic organizers of external quality assessment (EQA) schemes have taken a broader view of the objectives of such schemes than most traditional EQA organizers, as is well illustrated by a number of Nordic quality related projects referred to below. The Nordic EQA organizers feel an obligation to support actively quality improvements according to needs of the laboratories. Improved analytical specificity and standardization of analytical methods should become an integral part of EQA schemes, changing the emphasis from assessing the quality of analytical work to assuring quality by external guidance through external quality assurance (EQAssur) schemes. In preparation of such a change the following elements have to be considered