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. 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.

Developing optimized automated rule sets for reporting hemolysis, icterus and lipemia based on a priori outcomes analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information about the effects of instituting CLSI Document C56A recommended workflows for the automated detection of hemolysis, lipemia and icterus (HIL) in different clinical laboratories and patient populations. We describe a process to develop and tailor automated reporting rules that are appropriate for the local laboratory population. METHODS: Automated decision algorithms were generated and applied to 2 high volume labs serving community and hospital populations. Proposed rules were applied to the datasets offline to predict the outcomes, and then were further optimized prior to implementation. RESULTS: Introduction of automated serum indices decreased HIL flagging compared to manual flagging. Hemolysis flagging was the greatest in all 3 patient populations, and was successfully reduced for LD, CK and AST by optimized rules that incorporated both the H-index result and the analyte result. Changes in flagging rates were also patient population specific, particularly for icterus which was a problem in hospitalized populations but not in the community. Overall, concordance between manual and automated flagging methods was very low in both laboratories. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that flagging algorithms may not be universally transferable due to lab specific and population specific factors and demonstrate the benefits of local, a priori testing of algorithms prior to implementation.