Quality control in the Netherlands; todays practices and starting points for guidance and future research.

OBJECTIVES: Adequate analytical quality of reported results is primarily ensured by performing internal quality control (iQC). Currently, several different iQC practices are in use. As a prelude to the revision of a Dutch guidance document on analytical QC, a questionnaire was sent out to gain insights in the applied practices and the need for guidance. METHODS: A questionnaire, containing 20 multiple-choice questions with possibilities for explanation and comment on iQC practices and aspects was distributed to all clinical chemistry laboratories within the Netherlands. Results were reported descriptively. RESULTS: Responses were received from 27 clinical laboratories (response 43 %). In 30 % the iQC was based on the analytical characteristics only, while 30 % used a 6-Sigma method, 19 % risk-based beyond 6-Sigma and 22 % used an alternative approach. 89 % of laboratories used a virtual analyzer model for iQC setup within one or more laboratory sites. Practices for determining standard deviation (SD) values included determining SD for each new iQC material (35 %), using historical SD values for new materials (35 %), and incorporating clinical tolerances into the SD value (31 %). Furthermore, 44 % of laboratories used patient moving averages for one or more tests. Daily iQC management was based on either "traffic lights" indicating in or out of control status, and review of all QC charts, often using multiple software systems. CONCLUSIONS: A large heterogeneity of iQC practices in clinical laboratories was observed in the Netherlands. Several starting points for further research and/or guidance were identified, particularly in relation to the determination of SD values, the virtual analyzer model and methods to ensure analyzer equivalence.

ISO 15189 is a sufficient instrument to guarantee high-quality manufacture of laboratory developed tests for in-house-use conform requirements of the European In-Vitro-Diagnostics Regulation.

The EU In-Vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (IVDR) aims for transparent risk-and purpose-based validation of diagnostic devices, traceability of results to uniquely identified devices, and post-market surveillance. The IVDR regulates design, manufacture and putting into use of devices, but not medical services using these devices. In the absence of suitable commercial devices, the laboratory can resort to laboratory-developed tests (LDT) for in-house use. Documentary obligations (IVDR Art 5.5), the performance and safety specifications of ANNEX I, and development and manufacture under an ISO 15189-equivalent quality system apply. LDTs serve specific clinical needs, often for low volume niche applications, or correspond to the translational phase of new tests and treatments, often extremely relevant for patient care. As some commercial tests may disappear with the IVDR roll-out, many will require urgent LDT replacement. The workload will also depend on which modifications to commercial tests turns them into an LDT, and on how national legislators and competent authorities (CA) will handle new competences and responsibilities. We discuss appropriate interpretation of ISO 15189 to cover IVDR requirements. Selected cases illustrate LDT implementation covering medical needs with commensurate management of risk emanating from intended use and/or design of devices. Unintended collateral damage of the IVDR comprises loss of non-profitable niche applications, increases of costs and wasted resources, and migration of innovative research to more cost-efficient environments. Taking into account local specifics, the legislative framework should reduce the burden on and associated opportunity costs for the health care system, by making diligent use of existing frameworks.

Real-time monitoring of drug laboratory test interactions: a proof of concept.

OBJECTIVES: For the correct interpretation of test results, it is important to be aware of drug-laboratory test interactions (DLTIs). If DLTIs are not taken into account by clinicians, erroneous interpretation of test results may lead to a delayed or incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary diagnostic testing or therapy with possible harm for patients. A DLTI alert accompanying a laboratory test result could be a solution. The aim of this study was to test a multicentre proof of concept of an electronic clinical decision support system (CDSS) for real-time monitoring of DLTIs. METHODS: CDSS was implemented in three Dutch hospitals. So-called 'clinical rules' were programmed to alert medical specialists for possible DLTIs based on laboratory test results outside the reference range in combination with prescribed drugs. A selection of interactions from the DLTI database of the Dutch society of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine were integrated in 43 clinical rules, including 24 tests and 25 drugs. During the period of one month all generated DTLI alerts were registered in the laboratory information system. RESULTS: Approximately 65 DLTI alerts per day were detected in each hospital. Most DLTI alerts were generated in patients from the internal medicine and intensive care departments. The most frequently reported DLTI alerts were potassium-proton pump inhibitors (16%), potassium-beta blockers (11%) and creatine kinase-statins (11%). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that it is possible to alert for potential DLTIs in real-time with a CDSS. The CDSS was successfully implemented in three hospitals. Further research must reveal its usefulness in clinical practice.

Quality benchmarking of smartphone laboratory medicine applications: comparison of laboratory medicine specialists' and non-laboratory medicine professionals' evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: There are many mobile health applications (apps) now available and some that use in some way laboratory medicine data. Among them, patient-oriented are of the lowest content quality. The aim of this study was to compare the opinions of non-laboratory medicine professionals (NLMP) with those of laboratory medicine specialists (LMS) and define the benchmarks for quality assessment of laboratory medicine apps. METHODS: Twenty-five volunteers from six European countries evaluated 16 selected patient-oriented apps. Participants were 20-60 years old, 44% were females, with different educational degrees, and no professional involvement in laboratory medicine. Each participant completed a questionnaire based on the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) and the System Usability Scale, as previously used for rating the app quality by LMS. The responses from the two groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlation. RESULTS: The median total score of NLMP app evaluation was 2.73 out of 5 (IQR 0.95) compared to 3.78 (IQR 1.05) by the LMS. All scores were statistically significantly lower in the NLMP group (p<0.05), except for the item Information quality (p=0.1631). The suggested benchmarks for a useful appear: increasing awareness of the importance and delivering an understanding of persons' own laboratory test results; understandable terminology; easy to use; appropriate graphic design, and trustworthy information. CONCLUSIONS: NLMP' evaluation confirmed the low utility of currently available laboratory medicine apps. A reliable app should contain trustworthy and understandable information. The appearance of an app should be fit for purpose and easy to use.

Clinical usefulness of drug-laboratory test interaction alerts: a multicentre survey.

OBJECTIVES: Knowledge of possible drug-laboratory test interactions (DLTIs) is important for the interpretation of laboratory test results. Failure to recognize these interactions may lead to misinterpretation, a delayed or erroneous diagnosis, or unnecessary extra diagnostic tests or therapy, which may harm patients. The aim of this multicentre survey was to evaluate the clinical value of DLTI alerts. METHODS: A survey was designed with six predefined clinical cases selected from the clinical laboratory practice with a potential DLTI. Physicians from several departments, including internal medicine, cardiology, intensive care, surgery and geriatrics in six participating hospitals were recruited to fill in the survey. The survey addressed their knowledge of DLTIs, motivation to receive an alert and opinion on the potential influence on medical decision making. RESULTS: A total of 210 physicians completed the survey. Of these respondents 93% had a positive attitude towards receiving DLTI alerts; however, the reported value differed per case and per respondent's background. In each clinical case, medical decision making was influenced as a consequence of the reported DLTI message (ranging from 3 to 45% of respondents per case). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre survey, most physicians stated DLTI messages to be useful in laboratory test interpretation. Medical decision making was influenced by reporting DLTI alerts in each case. Alerts should be adjusted according to the needs and preferences of the receiving physicians.

The end of the laboratory developed test as we know it? Recommendations from a national multidisciplinary taskforce of laboratory specialists on the interpretation of the IVDR and its complications.

The in vitro diagnostic medical devices regulation (IVDR) will take effect in May 2022. This regulation has a large impact on both the manufacturers of in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD) and clinical laboratories. For clinical laboratories, the IVDR poses restrictions on the use of laboratory developed tests (LDTs). To provide a uniform interpretation of the IVDR for colleagues in clinical practice, the IVDR Task Force was created by the scientific societies of laboratory specialties in the Netherlands. A guidance document with explanations and interpretations of relevant passages of the IVDR was drafted to help laboratories prepare for the impact of this new legislation. Feedback from interested parties and stakeholders was collected and used to further improve the document. Here we would like to present our approach to our European colleagues and inform them about the impact of the IVDR and, importantly we would like to present potentially useful approaches to fulfill the requirements of the IVDR for LDTs.

Adding clinical utility to the laboratory reports: automation of interpretative comments.

In laboratory medicine, consultation by adding interpretative comments to reports has long been recognized as one of the activities that help to improve patient treatment outcomes and strengthen the position of our profession. Interpretation and understanding of laboratory test results might in some cases considerably be enhanced by adding test when considered appropriate by the laboratory specialist - an activity that was named reflective testing. With patient material available at this stage, this might considerably improve the diagnostic efficiency. The need and value of these forms of consultation have been proven by a diversity of studies. Both general practitioners and medical specialists have been shown to value interpretative comments. Other forms of consultation are emerging: in this time of patient empowerment and shared decision making, reporting of laboratory results to patients will be common. Patients have in general little understanding of these results, and consultation of patients could add a new dimension to the service of the laboratory. These developments have been recognized by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, which has established the working group on Patient Focused Laboratory Medicine for work on the matter. Providing proper interpretative comments is, however, labor intensive because harmonization is necessary to maintain quality between individual specialists. In present-day high-volume laboratories, there are few options on how to generate high-quality, patient-specific comments for all the relevant results without overwhelming the laboratory specialists. Automation and application of expert systems could be a solution, and systems have been developed that could ease this task.

The use of error and uncertainty methods in the medical laboratory.

Error methods - compared with uncertainty methods - offer simpler, more intuitive and practical procedures for calculating measurement uncertainty and conducting quality assurance in laboratory medicine. However, uncertainty methods are preferred in other fields of science as reflected by the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. When laboratory results are used for supporting medical diagnoses, the total uncertainty consists only partially of analytical variation. Biological variation, pre- and postanalytical variation all need to be included. Furthermore, all components of the measuring procedure need to be taken into account. Performance specifications for diagnostic tests should include the diagnostic uncertainty of the entire testing process. Uncertainty methods may be particularly useful for this purpose but have yet to show their strength in laboratory medicine. The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the pros and cons of error and uncertainty methods as groundwork for future consensus on their use in practical performance specifications. Error and uncertainty methods are complementary when evaluating measurement data.

Impact of interactions between drugs and laboratory test results on diagnostic test interpretation - a systematic review.

Intake of drugs may influence the interpretation of laboratory test results. Knowledge and correct interpretation of possible drug-laboratory test interactions (DLTIs) is important for physicians, pharmacists and laboratory specialists. Laboratory results may be affected by analytical or physiological effects of medication. Failure to take into account the possible unintended influence of drug use on a laboratory test result may lead to incorrect diagnosis, incorrect treatment and unnecessary follow-up. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the literature investigating the clinical impact and use of DLTI decision support systems on laboratory test interpretation. Particular interactions were reported in a large number of articles, but they were fragmentarily described and some papers even reported contradictory findings. To provide an overview of information that clinicians and laboratory staff need to interpret test results, DLTI databases have been made by several groups. In a literature search, only four relevant studies have been found on DLTI decision support applications for laboratory test interpretation in clinical practice. These studies show a potential benefit of automated DLTI messages to physicians for the correct interpretation of laboratory test results. Physicians reported 30-100% usefulness of DLTI messages. In one study 74% of physicians sometimes even refrained from further additional examination. The benefit of decision support increases when a refined set of clinical rules is determined in cooperation with health care professionals. The prevalence of DLTIs is high in a broad range of combinations of laboratory tests and drugs and these frequently remain unrecognized.

Strategies to define performance specifications in laboratory medicine: 3 years on from the Milan Strategic Conference.

Measurements in clinical laboratories produce results needed in the diagnosis and monitoring of patients. These results are always characterized by some uncertainty. What quality is needed and what measurement errors can be tolerated without jeopardizing patient safety should therefore be defined and specified for each analyte having clinical use. When these specifications are defined, the total examination process will be "fit for purpose" and the laboratory professionals should then set up rules to control the measuring systems to ensure they perform within specifications. The laboratory community has used different models to set performance specifications (PS). Recently, it was felt that there was a need to revisit different models and, at the same time, to emphasize the presuppositions for using the different models. Therefore, in 2014 the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) organized a Strategic Conference in Milan. It was felt that there was a need for more detailed discussions on, for instance, PS for EQAS, which measurands should use which models to set PS and how to set PS for the extra-analytical phases. There was also a need to critically evaluate the quality of data on biological variation studies and further discussing the use of the total error (TE) concept. Consequently, EFLM established five Task Finish Groups (TFGs) to address each of these topics. The TFGs are finishing their activity on 2017 and the content of this paper includes deliverables from these groups.

Could accreditation bodies facilitate the implementation of medical guidelines in laboratories?

Several studies have shown that recommendations related to how laboratory testing should be performed and results interpreted are limited in medical guidelines and that the uptake and implementation of the recommendations that are available need improvement. The EFLM/UEMS Working Group on Guidelines conducted a survey amongst the national societies for clinical chemistry in Europe regarding development of laboratory-related guidelines. The results showed that most countries have guidelines that are specifically related to laboratory testing; however, not all countries have a formal procedure for accepting such guidelines and few countries have guideline committees. Based on this, the EFLM/UEMS Working Group on Guidelines conclude that there is still room for improvement regarding these processes in Europe and raise the question if the accreditation bodies could be a facilitator for an improvement.

A survey of patients' views from eight European countries of interpretive support from Specialists in Laboratory Medicine.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in direct patient engagement including receiving their laboratory medicine results. We previously established an appetite for Specialists in Laboratory Medicine to support patients in understanding results. The aim of this study was to establish whether patients agreed with such an approach, determined through surveying views in eight European countries. METHODS: A standardized five-question survey was administered across eight European countries to a total of 1084 individuals attending medical outpatient clinics, with 100 patients each in Poland, Serbia, Netherlands, Turkey and Czech Republic, 101 in Estonia, 116 in Denmark and 367 in Norway. The responses across countries were compared using the chi-square test (p<0.05). RESULTS: Patients wanting their results ranged from 50% to 94% (mean 65%) of those responding positively, a mean of 72% wanted additional information with their results; direct receipt was preferred over referral to a website. Specialists in Laboratory Medicine providing such information were acceptable to a mean of 62% of those respondents wishing their results; in countries where payment was possible, there was little interest in making additional payment for such a service. CONCLUSIONS: A clear proportion of patients are interested in receiving their laboratory medicine results, the majority with explanatory notes; a role for Specialists in Laboratory Medicine is acceptable and raises the potential for direct engagement by such specialists with patients offering a new paradigm for the provision of laboratory medicine activities.

Total error vs. measurement uncertainty: revolution or evolution?

The first strategic EFLM conference "Defining analytical performance goals, 15 years after the Stockholm Conference" was held in the autumn of 2014 in Milan. It maintained the Stockholm 1999 hierarchy of performance goals but rearranged them and established five task and finish groups to work on topics related to analytical performance goals including one on the "total error" theory. Jim Westgard recently wrote a comprehensive overview of performance goals and of the total error theory critical of the results and intentions of the Milan 2014 conference. The "total error" theory originated by Jim Westgard and co-workers has a dominating influence on the theory and practice of clinical chemistry but is not accepted in other fields of metrology. The generally accepted uncertainty theory, however, suffers from complex mathematics and conceived impracticability in clinical chemistry. The pros and cons of the total error theory need to be debated, making way for methods that can incorporate all relevant causes of uncertainty when making medical diagnoses and monitoring treatment effects. This development should preferably proceed not as a revolution but as an evolution.

Why are clinical practice guidelines not followed?

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are written with the aim of collating the most up to date information into a single document that will aid clinicians in providing the best practice for their patients. There is evidence to suggest that those clinicians who adhere to CPG deliver better outcomes for their patients. Why, therefore, are clinicians so poor at adhering to CPG? The main barriers include awareness, familiarity and agreement with the contents. Secondly, clinicians must feel that they have the skills and are therefore able to deliver on the CPG. Clinicians also need to be able to overcome the inertia of "normal practice" and understand the need for change. Thirdly, the goals of clinicians and patients are not always the same as each other (or the guidelines). Finally, there are a multitude of external barriers including equipment, space, educational materials, time, staff, and financial resource. In view of the considerable energy that has been placed on guidelines, there has been extensive research into their uptake. Laboratory medicine specialists are not immune from these barriers. Most CPG that include laboratory tests do not have sufficient detail for laboratories to provide any added value. However, where appropriate recommendations are made, then it appears that laboratory specialist express the same difficulties in compliance as front-line clinicians.

Proposal for the modification of the conventional model for establishing performance specifications.

Appropriate quality of test results is fundamental to the work of the medical laboratory. How to define the level of quality needed is a question that has been subject to much debate. Quality specifications have been defined based on criteria derived from the clinical applicability, validity of reference limits and reference change values, state-of-the-art performance, and other criteria, depending on the clinical application or technical characteristics of the measurement. Quality specifications are often expressed as the total error allowable (TEA) - the total amount of error that is medically, administratively, or legally acceptable. Following the TEA concept, bias and imprecision are combined into one number representing the "maximum allowable" error in the result. The commonly accepted method for calculation of the allowable error based on biological variation might, however, have room for improvement. In the present paper, we discuss common theories on the determination of quality specifications. A model is presented that combines the state-of-the-art with biological variation for the calculation of performance specifications. The validity of reference limits and reference change values are central to this model. The model applies to almost any test if biological variation can be defined. A pragmatic method for the design of internal quality control is presented.

Laboratory medicine in the European Union.

The profession of laboratory medicine differs between countries within the European Union (EU) in many respects. The objective of professional organizations of the promotion of mutual recognition of specialists within the EU is closely related to the free movement of people. This policy translates to equivalence of standards and harmonization of the training curriculum. The aim of the present study is the description of the organization and practice of laboratory medicine within the countries that constitute the EU. A questionnaire covering many aspects of the profession was sent to delegates of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and Union Européenne de Médecins Spécialistes (UEMS) of the 28 EU countries. Results were sent to the delegates for confirmation. Many differences between countries were identified: predominantly medical or scientific professionals; a broad or limited professional field of interest; inclusion of patient treatment; formal or absent recognition; a regulated or absent formal training program; general or minor application of a quality system based on ISO Norms. The harmonization of the postgraduate training of both clinical chemists and of laboratory physicians has been a goal for many years. Differences in the organization of the laboratory professions still exist in the respective countries which all have a long historical development with their own rationality. It is an important challenge to harmonize our profession, and difficult choices will need to be made. Recent developments with respect to the directive on Recognition of Professional Qualifications call for new initiatives to harmonize laboratory medicine both across national borders, and across the borders of scientific and medical professions.

European views on patients directly obtaining their laboratory test results.

BACKGROUND: Medicine is a highly professionalized endeavour, by tradition centred on the authority of physicians. Better education and the advent of the information age cater for increased demands on society in general and on health care in particular to enable people to make informed decisions regarding themselves. Participation in medical decisions requires informed knowledge which is hard to obtain without substantial and time consuming professional help. METHODS: We performed a survey amongst the member organizations of European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) in order to investigate the recognition and preparedness of providing help to patients in interpreting their laboratory results. RESULTS: Out of 40 EFLM Member Societies, 27 sent their responses to the survey. In most cases the first line delivery of laboratory results to physicians is by computer link (63%). Patients receive their laboratory results on demand from their physician in 60% of cases. However, 34% of laboratory specialists showed a negative attitude for delivering laboratory results to patients. Yet, in 48% of countries 1-5 patients per day ask a laboratory specialist about the significance of laboratory results outside the reference range. When patients are informed about the purpose of laboratory testing, they seek information primarily from their physician, followed by the internet and the Specialist in Laboratory Medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Changing practices increasingly enabling patient access to their records are on the increase facilitated by recent innovations in information technologies. Successful transfer of some of the responsibilities of physicians, demands a mutual triangular dialogue between the patient, their physician and laboratory medicine.

A multicenter evaluation of dysthyroxinemia in a defined patient cohort.

BACKGROUND: In the region Limburg (The Netherlands) almost all of the five participating laboratories use a different immunoassay platform to determine thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thryoxine (FT4). With the frequent transfer of patients within the region, harmonization of test result interpretation is necessary. In this study, we investigated dysthyroxinemia classification between participating laboratories and developed procedures for improvement. METHODS: Two ring surveys with an interval of 2 years were performed. Four patient groups (n=100) with different dysthyroxinemia classification were based on biochemical results of the Autodelphia analyzer. Samples were tested in five participating laboratories. In each group the percentage of patients classified with dysthyroxinemia was calculated and differences were analyzed by the Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: After the first survey, the percentage of patients with hyperthyroxinemia was more than 20% lower in three laboratories compared to the other two. Bhattacharya analysis revealed that the upper reference limit of FT4 was 20%-30% too high in two laboratories. Adjustments of reference ranges appeared to be effective in the second survey. The third laboratory reported significantly lower percentages of patients with hyperthyroxinemia in the second survey. New FT4 reference ranges were determined for this laboratory, resulting in adequate classification of hyperthyroxinemia. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the potential of a multicenter evaluation of dysthyroxinemia in a biochemical-defined patient cohort. In particular, classification of hyperthyroxinemia differed between laboratories. Adjustments of reference ranges resulted in better agreement of dysthyroxinemia classification. Even using internal and external quality assurance programs, application of multicenter ring surveys is advised to prevent inadequate reference ranges.

Critical review of laboratory investigations in clinical practice guidelines: proposals for the description of investigation.

BACKGROUND: Correct information provided by guidelines may reduce laboratory test related errors during the pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical phase and increase the quality of laboratory results. METHODS: Twelve clinical practice guidelines were reviewed regarding inclusion of important laboratory investigations. Based on the results and the authors' experience, two checklists were developed: one comprehensive list including topics that authors of guidelines may consider and one consisting of minimal standards that should be covered for all laboratory tests recommended in clinical practice guidelines. The number of topics addressed by the guidelines was related to involvement of laboratory medicine specialists in the guideline development process. RESULTS: The comprehensive list suggests 33 pre- analytical, 37 analytical and 10 post-analytical items. The mean percentage of topics dealt with by the guidelines was 33% (median 30%, range 17%-55%) and inclusion of a laboratory medicine specialist in the guideline committee significantly increased the number of topics addressed. Information about patient status, biological and analytical interferences and sample handling were scarce in most guidelines even if the inclusion of a laboratory medicine specialist in the development process seemingly led to increased focus on, e.g., sample type, sample handling and analytical variation. Examples underlining the importance of including laboratory items are given. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of laboratory medicine specialist in the guideline development process may increase the focus on important laboratory related items even if this information is usually limited. Two checklists are suggested to help guideline developers to cover all important topics related to laboratory testing.