Point-of-care testing: state-of-the art and perspectives.

Point-of-care testing (POCT) is becoming an increasingly popular way to perform laboratory tests closer to the patient. This option has several recognized advantages, such as accessibility, portability, speed, convenience, ease of use, ever-growing test panels, lower cumulative healthcare costs when used within appropriate clinical pathways, better patient empowerment and engagement, and reduction of certain pre-analytical errors, especially those related to specimen transportation. On the other hand, POCT also poses some limitations and risks, namely the risk of lower accuracy and reliability compared to traditional laboratory tests, quality control and connectivity issues, high dependence on operators (with varying levels of expertise or training), challenges related to patient data management, higher costs per individual test, regulatory and compliance issues such as the need for appropriate validation prior to clinical use (especially for rapid diagnostic tests; RDTs), as well as additional preanalytical sources of error that may remain undetected in this type of testing, which is usually based on whole blood samples (i.e., presence of interfering substances, clotting, hemolysis, etc.). There is no doubt that POCT is a breakthrough innovation in laboratory medicine, but the discussion on its appropriate use requires further debate and initiatives. This collective opinion paper, composed of abstracts of the lectures presented at the two-day expert meeting "Point-Of-Care-Testing: State of the Art and Perspective" (Venice, April 4-5, 2024), aims to provide a thoughtful overview of the state-of-the-art in POCT, its current applications, advantages and potential limitations, as well as some interesting reflections on the future perspectives of this particular field of laboratory medicine.

Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: state-of-the-art, quality specifications and future strategies.

In the last few decades, quality in laboratory medicine has evolved in concert with the transformation and the changes (technological, scientific and organizational) in this sector. Laboratory professionals have faced great challenges, at times being overwhelmed, yet also involved in this progress. Worldwide, laboratory professionals and scientific societies involved in laboratory medicine have raised awareness concerning the need to identify new quality assurance tools that are effective in reducing the error rate and enhancing patient safety, in addition to Internal Quality Control (IQC) procedures and the participation in the External Quality Assessment Schemes (EQAS). The use of Quality Indicators (QIs), specifically designed for laboratory medicine are effective in assessing and monitoring all critical events occurring in the different phases of Total Testing Process (TTP), in particular, in the extra-analytical phases. The Model of Quality Indicators (MQI), proposed by the Working Group "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" (WG-LEPS) of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) and validated by experts in consensus conferences, is an important window of opportunity for the medical laboratory to demonstrate the use of an effective quality assurance tool fit for this purpose. Aim of this paper is to provide an update of the state-of-the-art concerning the most used QIs data collected in 2021 and the Quality Specifications (QSs) proposed for their evaluation. Moreover, a strategy for the future is proposed in order to improve the MQI and encourage its use in medical laboratories throughout the world.

Evaluation of the cardiovascular risk in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery: role of cardiac-specific biomarkers.

Major adverse cardiovascular events are frequently observed in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery during the peri-operative period. At this time, the possibility to predict cardiovascular events remains limited, despite the introduction of several algorithms to calculate the risk of adverse events, mainly death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) based on the clinical history, risk factors (sex, age, lipid profile, serum creatinine) and non-invasive cardiac exams (electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, stress tests). The cardiac-specific biomarkers natriuretic peptides (NPs) and cardiac troponins (cTn) have been proposed as additional tools for risk prediction in the peri-operative period, particularly for the identification of myocardial injury in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. The prognostic information from the measurement of BNP/NT-proBNP and hs-cTn is independent and complementary to other important indicators of risk, also including ECG and imaging techniques. Elevated levels of cardiac-specific biomarkers before surgery are associated with a markedly higher risk of MACE during the peri-operative period. BNP/NT-proBNP and hs-cTn should be measured in all patients during the clinical evaluation before surgery, particularly during intermediate- or high-risk surgery, in patients aged >65 years and/or with comorbidities. Several questions remain to be assessed in dedicated clinical studies, such as how to optimize the management of patients with raised cardiac specific biomarkers before surgery, and whether a strategy based on biomarker measurement improves patient outcomes and is cost-effective.

Use of high-sensitivity cardiac troponins in the emergency department for the early rule-in and rule-out of acute myocardial infarction without persistent ST-segment elevation (NSTEMI) in Italy.

Serial measurements of cardiac troponin are recommended by international guidelines to diagnose myocardial infarction (MI) since 2000. However, some relevant differences exist between the three different international guidelines published between 2020 and 2021 for the management of patients with chest pain and no ST-segment elevation. In particular, there is no agreement on the cut-offs or absolute change values to diagnose non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI). Other controversial issues concern the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of cut-off values for the most rapid algorithms (0 h/1 h or 0 h/2 h) to rule-in and rule-out NSTEMI. Finally, another important point is the possible differences between demographic and clinical characteristics of patients enrolled in multicenter trials compared to those routinely admitted to the Emergency Department in Italy. The Study Group of Cardiac Biomarkers, supported by the Italian Scientific Societies Società Italiana di Biochimica Clinica, Italian Society of the European Ligand Assay Society, and Società Italiana di Patolgia Clinica e Medicina di Laboratorio decided to revise the document previously published in 2013 about the management of patients with suspected NSTEMI, and to provide some suggestions for the use of these biomarkers in clinical practice, with a particular focus on the Italian setting.

Serological diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2: an experimental External Quality Assessment Scheme.

OBJECTIVES: Numerous analytical systems, rapidly made available on the market throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, aim to detect COVID-19, and to continuously update and improve the same systems. Medical laboratory professionals have also developed in-house analytical procedures in order to satisfy the enormous volume of requests for tests. These developments have highlighted the need control the analytical procedures used in order to guarantee patient safety. The External Quality Assessment (EQA) Scheme, an important quality assurance tool, aims to guarantee high standard performance for laboratory and analytical procedures. The aim of the present study was to report on the results collected in an experimental EQA scheme for the serological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: All qualitative results collected in the different EQA surveys were summarized in order to identify the percentage of laboratory results in relation to typology of antibodies, results and samples. RESULTS: A total of 4,867 data sets were collected. The analysis of EQA data made, demonstrates a better agreement among laboratories results for total Ig than single immunoglobulins (IgG, IgM, IgA) in the case samples positive for SARS-CoV-2, and a wide divergence between IgM results for positive samples (only 34.9% were correct). Results for negative controls and specificity controls demonstrated a better overall agreement than results for positive samples. CONCLUSIONS: Working in collaboration with the IVD manufacturers, laboratory professionals must strive to achieve harmonization of results, and to develop well-defined protocols complying with the ISO 15189 requirements.

Analytical and clinical performances of a SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG assay: comparison with neutralization titers.

OBJECTIVES: SARS-CoV-2 serology presents an important role in several aspects of COVID-19 pandemic. Immunoassays performances have to be accurately evaluated and correlated with neutralizing antibodies. We investigated the analytical and clinical performances of a SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG assay, automated on a high throughput platform, and the correlation of the antibodies (Ab) levels with the plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT50) Ab titers. METHODS: A series of 546 samples were evaluated by SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG assay (Snibe diagnostics), including 171 negative and 168 positive SARS-CoV-2 subjects and a further group of 207 subjects of the COVID-19 family clusters follow-up cohort. RESULTS: Assay imprecision ranged from 3.98 to 12.18% being satisfactory at low and medium levels; linearity was excellent in all the measurement range. Considering specimens collected after 14 days post symptoms onset, overall sensitivity and specificity were 99.0 and 92.5%, respectively. A total of 281 leftover samples results of the PRNT50 test were available. An elevated correlation was obtained between the SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG assay and the PRNT50 titer at univariate (ρ=0.689) and multivariate (ρ=0.712) analyses. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG assay shows satisfactory analytical and clinical performances, and a strong correlation with sera neutralizing activity.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I and T methods for the early detection of myocardial injury in patients on chemotherapy.

Important advances achieved in pharmacological cancer treatment have led progressively to a reduction in mortality from many forms of cancer, and increasing numbers of previously incurable patients can now hope to become cancer-free. Yet, to achieve these improved outcomes a high price has been paid in terms of untoward side effects associated with treatment, cardio-toxicity in particular. Several recent studies have reported that cardiac troponin assay using high-sensitivity methods (hs-cTn) can enable the early detection of myocardial injury related to chemotherapy or abuse of drugs that are potentially cardiotoxic. Several authors have recently suggested that changes in hs-cTn values enable the early diagnosis of cardiac injury from chemotherapy, thus potentially benefitting cancer patients with increased troponin values by initiating early cardioprotective therapy. However, large randomised clinical trials are needed in order to evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of standardised protocols for the early detection of cardiotoxicity using the hs-cTn assay in patients treated with chemotherapy.

A proposed Common Training Framework for Specialists in Laboratory Medicine under EU Directive 2013/55/EC (The Recognition of Professional Qualifications).

European Union (EU) Directive 2013/55/EC (The Recognition of Professional Qualifications) allows Member States to decide on a common set of minimum knowledge, skills and competences that are needed to pursue a given profession through a Common Training Framework. To be adopted the framework must combine the knowledge, skills and competences of at least one third of the Member States. Professionals who have gained their qualifications under a Common Training Framework will be able to have these recognised automatically within the Union. The backbone of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine's (EFLM) proposed Common Training Framework for non-medical Specialists in Laboratory Medicine is outlined here. It is based on an Equivalence of Standards in education, training, qualifications, knowledge, skills, competences and the professional conduct associated with specialist practice. In proposing the recognition of specialist practice EFLM has identified 15 EU Member States able to meet Equivalence and in whom the profession and/or its training is regulated (an additional EU Commission requirement). The framework supports and contributes to the Directive's enabling goals for increasing professional mobility, safeguarding consumers and ensuring a more equitable distribution of skills and expertise across the Member States. It represents EFLM's position statement and provides a template for professional societies and/or competent authorities to engage with the EU Commission.

Management of patients with severe haemophilia a without inhibitors on prophylaxis with emicizumab: AICE recommendations with focus on emergency in collaboration with SIBioC, SIMEU, SIMEUP, SIPMeL and SISET.

INTRODUCTION: The factor VIII (FVIII)-mimetic bispecific monoclonal antibody, emicizumab, previously approved for prophylaxis in haemophilia A with inhibitors, has been recently licensed in several countries also in patients with severe haemophilia A (PWSHA) without inhibitors. The introduction of this innovative agent requires the development of specific pathways at Haemophilia Treatment Centres (HTC), particularly regarding laboratory testing and treatment of breakthrough bleeds and invasive procedures/surgeries, even more critical when patients are managed by non-specialist professionals. Limited literature data and clinical experience in PWSHA without inhibitors on emicizumab are currently available. AIM: To promote awareness and overcome these challenges, the Italian Association of Haemophilia Centres (AICE) issued a guidance on the management of PWSHA without inhibitors on emicizumab prophylaxis, focused on emergency and shared with other National Scientific Societies in the field. METHODS: The document, drafted by an AICE expert panel and approved through online consultation, was further revised by a multidisciplinary working group, including members of 5 haemostasis, laboratory and emergency scientific societies. The final version was approved by the Council of each society. RESULTS: General recommendations about use of FVIII concentrates for the treatment of bleeding or haemostatic coverage of invasive procedures/surgeries and laboratory monitoring in PWSHA without inhibitors on emicizumab are provided. Specific issues of the management in the emergency room are focused, highlighting the need for direct involvement or formalized supervision by specialist HTC physicians. CONCLUSIONS: This guidance provides a reference pathway to be implemented in the different healthcare organizations, especially for the challenging emergency management in this setting.

Analytical performances of a chemiluminescence immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG and antibody kinetics.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019, abbreviated to COVID-19, represents an emerging health threat worldwide as, after initial reports in China, it has continued to spread rapidly. The clinical spectrum of the disease varies from mild to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Moreover, many patients can be asymptomatic, thus increasing the uncertainty of the diagnostic work-up. Laboratory tests play a pivotal role in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19, the current gold standard being real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) on respiratory tract specimens. However, the diagnostic accuracy of rRT-PCR depends on many pre-analytical and analytical variables. The measurement of specific COVID-19 antibodies (both IgG and IgM) should serve as an additional, non-invasive tool for disease detection and management. Methods The imprecision of the MAGLUMI™ 2000 Plus 2019-nCov IgM and IgG assays (Snibe, Shenzhen, China) was assessed by adopting the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) EP15-A3 protocol. Linearity of dilution and recovery was evaluated by means of mixes of high-level pools and low-level pools of serum samples. Immunoglobulin time kinetics were evaluated using a series of serum samples, repeatedly collected from COVID-19-positive patients at different times, from <5 days up to 26-30 days. Results Findings at the analytical validation of the assay carried out according to the CLSI EP15-A3 guideline demonstrated that imprecision and repeatability were acceptable (repeatability was <4% and <6% for IgM and IgG, respectively, whilst intermediate imprecision was <6%). In addition, results of dilution and recovery studies were satisfactory. The kinetics of COVID-19 antibodies confirmed previously reported findings, showing a rapid increase of both IgM and IgG after 6-7 days from the symptom onset. IgG had 100% sensitivity on day 12, whilst 88% was the higher positive rate achieved for IgM after the same time interval. Conclusions The findings of this study demonstrate the validity of the MAGLUMI 2000 Plus CLIA assay for the measurement of specific IgM and IgG in sera of COVID-19 patients, and for obtaining valuable data on the kinetics of both (IgM and IgG) COVID-19 antibodies. These data represent a pre-requisite for the appropriate utilization of specific antibodies for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients.

Evidence on clinical relevance of cardiovascular risk evaluation in the general population using cardio-specific biomarkers.

In recent years, the formulation of some immunoassays with high-sensitivity analytical performance allowed the accurate measurement of cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and T (cTnT) levels in reference subjects. Several studies have demonstrated the association between the risk of major cardiovascular events and cardiac troponin concentrations even for biomarker values within the reference intervals. High-sensitivity cTnI and cTnT methods (hs-cTn) enable to monitor myocardial renewal and remodelling, and to promptly identify patients at highest risk ofheart failure. An early and effective treatment of individuals at higher cardiovascular risk may revert the initial myocardial remodelling and slow down heart failure progression. Specific clinical trials should be carried out to demonstrate the efficacy and efficiency of the general population screening by means of cost-benefit analysis, in order to better identify individuals at higher risk for heart failure (HF) progression with hs-cTn methods.

Commutability of external quality assessment materials for point-of-care glucose testing using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and International Federation of Clinical Chemistry approaches.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the commutability of three external quality assessment (EQA) materials for point-of-care (POC) glucose testing using two approaches, to identify suitable EQA materials to evaluate and monitor the quality of POC testing. METHODS: Commercial control materials (CCMs), pooled human serum samples (PHSs), and homemade human whole-blood samples (HWBs) were measured along with 33 individual clinical samples using five POC instruments and a Hitachi 7600 analyzer. Data were analyzed by Deming regression analysis with a 95% prediction interval as described in Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) EP30-A, and by difference in bias analysis as described by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) Working Group on Commutability. RESULTS: Using the CLSI approach, HWBs, CCMs, and PHSs were commutable with five, one, and two instruments, respectively. With the IFCC approach, HWBs were commutable with two instruments, while CCMs and PHSs were largely inconclusive or non-commutable on five instruments. CONCLUSIONS: HWBs were commutable on all instruments by the CLSI approach and may be a suitable EQA material for POC testing. Although some results differed between the IFCC and CLSI approaches, both indicated that HWBs were far superior to CCMs and PHSs in commutability.

A pilot study for establishing quality indicators in molecular diagnostics according to the IFCC WG-LEPS initiative: preliminary findings in China.

Background Quality indicators (QIs) are crucial tools in measuring the quality of laboratory services. Based on the general QIs of the Working Group "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety (WG-LEPS)" of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC), specific QIs have been established in order to monitor and improve the quality of molecular diagnostics, and to assess the detection level of associated disease. Methods A survey was conducted on 46 independent commercial laboratories in China, investigated using questionnaires and on-site inspections. Specific QIs established were mainly based on the specific laboratory work-flow for molecular diagnoses. The specific QI results from three volunteer laboratories were collected and used to validate their effectiveness. Results Of the 46 laboratories participating in the study, 44 (95.7%), conducted molecular diagnostics. Of 13 specific established QIs, six were priority level 1, and seven, priority level 3. At pre-evaluation of data from the three volunteering laboratories, it was found that the newly classified specific QIs had outstanding advantages in error identification and risk reduction. Conclusions Novel specific QIs, a promising tool for monitoring and improving upon the total testing process in molecular diagnostics, can effectively contribute to ensuring patient safety.

Extra-analytical sources of uncertainty: which ones really matter?

Since the endorsement by ISO15189:2012 of measurement uncertainty (MU) for the estimation of error in measurement procedures, the debate has been ongoing with questions concerning which method should be used for estimating MU and the benefits of using MU over other error methods. However, only limited attention has been given to extra-analytical sources of uncertainty and, currently, a clear standpoint is still missing. This opinion paper aims to evaluate whether extra-analytical variables could be included in MU. Considering coagulation tests as an example, the possible sources of preanalytical variations are evaluated by using a fishbone diagram. After excluding preanalytical errors, additional sources of uncertainty are divided into amenable to standardization/harmonization and/or possible random sources, which are not standardizable nor harmonizable. Finally, sources of uncertainty are evaluated for a possible inclusion into MU. In addition, postanalytical uncertainty is discussed, particularly considering the laboratory results calculated through a mathematical equation, derived from one or more quantities affected by their specific uncertainty.

Preanalytical challenges - time for solutions.

The European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) was originally established in 2013, with the main aims of (i) promoting the importance of quality in the preanalytical phase of the testing process, (ii) establishing best practices and providing guidance for critical activities in the preanalytical phase, (iii) developing and disseminating European surveys for exploring practices concerning preanalytical issues, (iv) organizing meetings, workshops, webinars or specific training courses on preanalytical issues. As education is a core activity of the WG-PRE, a series of European conferences have been organized every second year across Europe. This collective article summarizes the leading concepts expressed during the lectures of the fifth EFLM Preanalytical Conference "Preanalytical Challenges - Time for solutions", held in Zagreb, 22-23 March, 2019. The topics covered include sample stability, preanalytical challenges in hematology testing, feces analysis, bio-banking, liquid profiling, mass spectrometry, next generation sequencing, laboratory automation, the importance of knowing and measuring the exact sampling time, technology aids in managing inappropriate utilization of laboratory resources, management of hemolyzed samples and preanalytical quality indicators.

Extra-analytical quality indicators - where to now?

A large body of evidence collected in recent years demonstrates the vulnerability of the extra-analytical phases of the total testing process (TTP) and the need to promote quality and harmonization in each and every step of the testing cycle. Quality indicators (QIs), which play a key role in documenting and improving quality in TTP, are essential requirements for clinical laboratory accreditation. In the last few years, wide consensus has been achieved on the need to adopt universal QIs and common terminology and to harmonize the management procedure concerning their use by adopting a common metric and reporting system. This, in turn, has led to the definition of performance specifications for extra-analytical phases based on the state of the art as indicated by data collected on QIs, particularly by clinical laboratories attending the Model of Quality Indicators program launched by the Working Group "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Harmonization plays a fundamental role defining not only the list of QIs to use but also performance specifications based on the state of the art, thus providing a valuable interlaboratory benchmark and tools for continuous improvement programs.

Harmonization of units and reference intervals of plasma proteins: state of the art from an External Quality Assessment Scheme.

BACKGROUND: The need to harmonize laboratory information is particularly intense in the field of plasma proteins, considering their clinical impact and relevance in monitoring diseases. METHODS: We evaluated units and reference intervals (RIs) utilized by participants of the External Quality Assessment Scheme (EQAS) for plasma proteins of the Centre of Biomedical Research. Moreover, we evaluated inter-laboratory analytical variability from 2001 to 2017. RESULTS: The census of participants' units employed in 2017 showed that for albumin (ALB), ~66% of laboratories still used dL instead of L, and for most other proteins, ~70% still expressed the results in mg/dL. Laboratories primarily used the RIs reported in the packaging inserts of their analytical systems, but for each protein, there was a wide variability of RIs, also among laboratories using the same analytical method. Mean CVs% of the 13 certified proteins in the last five EQA cycles ranged from 3.8% of haptoglobin (HPT) to 12.4% of α1-antitrypsin (AAT) and decreased from 2001 to 2017 for most of them, in particular for C3, ALB, α2-macroglobulin (A2M), HPT and transferrin (TRF). CONCLUSIONS: In the face of a reduction in inter-laboratory variability for a lot of proteins, there has not been a substantial change in the units and in the RIs used by the participants. To change old habits is difficult and requires coordination and collaboration. The EQAS plays an important role in the assessment and monitoring of all elements that contribute to the formulation of laboratory information and may be useful to contribute to their harmonization.

Verification of examination procedures in clinical laboratory for imprecision, trueness and diagnostic accuracy according to ISO 15189:2012: a pragmatic approach.

Background The International Standard ISO 15189 is recognized as a valuable guide in ensuring high quality clinical laboratory services and promoting the harmonization of accreditation programmes in laboratory medicine. Examination procedures must be verified in order to guarantee that their performance characteristics are congruent with the intended scope of the test. The aim of the present study was to propose a practice model for implementing procedures employed for the verification of validated examination procedures already used for at least 2 years in our laboratory, in agreement with the ISO 15189 requirement at the Section 5.5.1.2. Methods In order to identify the operative procedure to be used, approved documents were identified, together with the definition of performance characteristics to be evaluated for the different methods; the examination procedures used in laboratory were analyzed and checked for performance specifications reported by manufacturers. Then, operative flow charts were identified to compare the laboratory performance characteristics with those declared by manufacturers. Results The choice of performance characteristics for verification was based on approved documents used as guidance, and the specific purpose tests undertaken, a consideration being made of: imprecision and trueness for quantitative methods; diagnostic accuracy for qualitative methods; imprecision together with diagnostic accuracy for semi-quantitative methods. Conclusions The described approach, balancing technological possibilities, risks and costs and assuring the compliance of the fundamental component of result accuracy, appears promising as an easily applicable and flexible procedure helping laboratories to comply with the ISO 15189 requirements.

An approach for estimating measurement uncertainty in medical laboratories using data from long-term quality control and external quality assessment schemes.

BACKGROUND: The present study was prompted by the ISO 15189 requirements that medical laboratories should estimate measurement uncertainty (MU). METHODS: The method used to estimate MU included the: a) identification of quantitative tests, b) classification of tests in relation to their clinical purpose, and c) identification of criteria to estimate the different MU components. Imprecision was estimated using long-term internal quality control (IQC) results of the year 2016, while external quality assessment schemes (EQAs) results obtained in the period 2015-2016 were used to estimate bias and bias uncertainty. RESULTS: A total of 263 measurement procedures (MPs) were analyzed. On the basis of test purpose, in 51 MPs imprecision only was used to estimate MU; in the remaining MPs, the bias component was not estimable for 22 MPs because EQAs results did not provide reliable statistics. For a total of 28 MPs, two or more MU values were calculated on the basis of analyte concentration levels. Overall, results showed that uncertainty of bias is a minor factor contributing to MU, the bias component being the most relevant contributor to all the studied sample matrices. CONCLUSIONS: The model chosen for MU estimation allowed us to derive a standardized approach for bias calculation, with respect to the fitness-for-purpose of test results. Measurement uncertainty estimation could readily be implemented in medical laboratories as a useful tool in monitoring the analytical quality of test results since they are calculated using a combination of both the long-term imprecision IQC results and bias, on the basis of EQAs results.

Defining a roadmap for harmonizing quality indicators in Laboratory Medicine: a consensus statement on behalf of the IFCC Working Group "Laboratory Error and Patient Safety" and EFLM Task and Finish Group "Performance specifications for the extra-analytical phases".

The improving quality of laboratory testing requires a deep understanding of the many vulnerable steps involved in the total examination process (TEP), along with the identification of a hierarchy of risks and challenges that need to be addressed. From this perspective, the Working Group "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" (WG-LEPS) of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) is focusing its activity on implementation of an efficient tool for obtaining meaningful information on the risk of errors developing throughout the TEP, and for establishing reliable information about error frequencies and their distribution. More recently, the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) has created the Task and Finish Group "Performance specifications for the extra-analytical phases" (TFG-PSEP) for defining performance specifications for extra-analytical phases. Both the IFCC and EFLM groups are working to provide laboratories with a system to evaluate their performances and recognize the critical aspects where improvement actions are needed. A Consensus Conference was organized in Padova, Italy, in 2016 in order to bring together all the experts and interested parties to achieve a consensus for effective harmonization of quality indicators (QIs). A general agreement was achieved and the main outcomes have been the release of a new version of model of quality indicators (MQI), the approval of a criterion for establishing performance specifications and the definition of the type of information that should be provided within the report to the clinical laboratories participating to the QIs project.