Cargando…

Lot verification practices in Ontario clinical chemistry laboratories - Results of a patterns-of-practice survey

OBJECTIVES: Verifying new reagent or calibrator lots is crucial for maintaining consistent test performance. The Institute for Quality Management in Healthcare (IQMH) conducted a patterns-of-practice survey and follow-up case study to collect information on lot verification practices in Ontario. MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rutledge, Angela C., Johnston, Anna, Booth, Ronald A., Veljkovic, Kika, Bailey, Dana, Vandenberghe, Hilde, Waite, Gayle, Allen, Lynn C., Don-Wauchope, Andrew, Chan, Pak Cheung, Stemp, Julia, Edmond, Pamela, Leung, Victor, Aslan, Berna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9399155/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36035320
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2022.e00300
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: Verifying new reagent or calibrator lots is crucial for maintaining consistent test performance. The Institute for Quality Management in Healthcare (IQMH) conducted a patterns-of-practice survey and follow-up case study to collect information on lot verification practices in Ontario. METHODS: The survey had 17 multiple-choice questions and was distributed to 183 licensed laboratories. Participants provided information on materials used and approval/rejection criteria for their lot verification procedures for eight classes of testing systems. The case study provided a set of lot comparison data and was distributed to 132 laboratories. Responses were reviewed by IQMH scientific committees. RESULTS: Of the 175 laboratories that responded regarding reagent lot verifications, 74% verified all tests, 11% some, and 15% none. Of the 171 laboratories that responded regarding calibrator lot verifications, 39% verified all calibrators, 4% some, and 57% none. Reasons for not performing verifications ranged from difficulty performing parallel testing to high reagent cost. For automated chemistry assays and immunoassays, 23% of laboratories did not include patient-derived materials in reagent lot verifications and 42% included five to six patient materials; 58% of laboratories did not include patient-derived materials in calibrator lot verifications and 23% included five to six patient materials. Different combinations of test-specific rules were used for acceptance criteria. For a failed lot, 98% of laboratories would investigate further and take corrective actions. Forty-three percent of laboratories would accept the new reagent lot in the case study. CONCLUSION: Responses to the survey and case study demonstrated variability in lot verification practices among laboratories.