Evaluation of 18 quality indicators from the external quality assurance preanalytical programme of the Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQCML).

Objectives: Most errors in laboratory medicine occur in the pre- and post-analytical phases of the total testing process (TTP). In 2014, the Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQCML) started the current Preanalytical Phase EQA Programme, with the objective of providing a tool for the improvement of the preanalytical phase. The aim of this study was to review the evolution of quality indicators (QI) and the comparability of established performance specifications (PS) with other EQA programmes. Methods: In the SEQCML programme, participants were asked to register rejections of the main specimens and the causes for rejections. Data collected from 2014 to 2017, and then reviewed biennially (2018-2019), was used to calculate the percentiles; p25, p50, p75, and p90 for every round, and their means were set as PS. These PS were compared with the results of other programmes. Results: The evolution of QI results for 2018-2019 period showed general maintenance or improvement, e.g., a significant decrease in the number of serum samples with a haemolytic index ≥0.5 g/L, except for EDTA and citrate samples handle, maybe for an improvement in detection. The comparison with PS for the QI of the IFCC Working Group "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" and the Key Incident Management and Monitoring System (KIMMS) programme of the RCPA showed comparable results, supporting the validity of the established specifications. Conclusions: The PS obtained are a helpful tool for benchmarking and to identify processes of the preanalytical phase whose improvement should be set as a priority.

Recomendaciones para el diseño e implementación de un programa de aseguramiento de la calidad de la fase preanalítica / Recommendations for the design and implementation of a Pre-analytical Phase Quality Assurance Program

El aseguramiento de la calidad de la fase preanalítica se orienta hacia 2 aspectos clave: la gestión de los errores preanalíticos desde la perspectiva de la seguridad del paciente, y la mejora y armonización de los procedimientos, basada en la aplicación de normativa además de recomendaciones profesionales. Al igual que el resto de las fases, debe incluir un programa interno de aseguramiento y la participación en programas de intercomparación entre laboratorios. El control de calidad interno debe basarse fundamentalmente en la identificación de riesgos, detección sistemática de errores y establecimiento de indicadores. La selección de los indicadores priorizando el impacto en el paciente, la forma de detectar y registrar los errores de forma sistemática y fácilmente explotable, así como las variables utilizadas en su cálculo, son aspectos importantes para medir la eficacia de las acciones de mejora y permitir la comparabilidad entre laboratorios. En este sentido, los programas externos de la calidad de la fase preanalítica basados en la comparación de indicadores, son una herramienta útil para el diseño e implantación de un programa de aseguramiento de la calidad. Este documento pretende servir de apoyo para que cada laboratorio seleccione, implante y evalúe sus propios indicadores, de acuerdo a las características individuales de sus procedimientos preanalíticos, pero sin perder de vista la armonización entre laboratorios

The quality assurance of the pre-analytical phase is oriented towards two key aspects; the management of pre-analytical errors from the perspective of patient safety, and the improvement and harmonisation of procedures, based on the application of regulations and professional recommendations. Like the rest of the phases, it should include an internal quality assurance program, as well as the participation in external quality assurance programs. The internal quality control should mainly be based on the identification of risks, systematic detection of errors, and establishment of indicators. The selection of indicators prioritising the impact on the patient, the way to detect and record errors in a systematic and easily exploitable manner, and also the variables used in the calculations, are important aspects to measure the effectiveness of improvement actions and to allow comparability between laboratories. In this sense, the external quality assurance programs of the pre-analytical phase based on the comparison of indicators are a useful tool for the design and implementation of a quality assurance program. This document is intended as a support for each laboratory to select, implement, and evaluate its own indicators, according to the individual characteristics of its pre-analytical procedures, but without losing sight of the harmonisation between laboratories

Lack of transferability between two automated immunoassays for serum IGF-I measurement.

BACKGROUND: IGF-I is a clinically relevant protein in the diagnosis and monitoring of treatment of growth disor- ders. The Growth Hormone Research Society and the International IGF Research Society have encouraged the adoption of a universal calibration for immunoassays to improve standardization of IGF-I measurements, but currently commercial assays are calibrated either against the old WHO IRR 87/518 or the new WHO 02/254. We compared two IGF-I immunochemiluminescent assays: IMMULITE® 2000 (Siemens) and LIAISON® (DiaSorin), which differ in their standardization, and verified their precision according to quality specifications based on biological variation and their linear range. METHODS: 62 patient serum samples were analyzed for both assays and compared according to standards of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), EP9-A2-IR. Precision was verified according to CLSI EP15- A2. Optimal coefficient of variation (CVo) and desirable coefficient of variation (CVd) for IGF-I assays were calculated as quality specifications based on the biological variability, in order to assess if the interassay analytical CV (CVa1) in the two methods were appropriate. Two dilution series using the 1st WHO International Standard (WHO IS) for IGF-I 02/254 were used to verify and compare the linearity range. RESULTS: The regression analysis showed constant and proportional differences for serum samples (slope b = 0.8115 (CI 95% CI; 0.7575-0.8556); intercept a = 33.6873 (95% CI: 23.3613-44.0133) between assays and similar pro- portional differences for WHO IS 02/254 standard dilutions series (slope b = 0.8024 (CI 95% CI; 0.7560-0.8616); intercept a = 6.9623 (95% CI: -2.0819-18.4383) between assays. Within-laboratory coefficients of variation for low and high levels were 2.82% and 3.80% for IMMULITE® 2000 and 3.58% and 2.14% for LIAISON®, respecttively. CONCLUSIONS: IGF-I concentrations measured by both assays are not transferable. The results emphasize the need to express IGF-I concentrations in standard deviation score (SDS) according to a matched normal population of the same age and gender. Within-laboratory precision in both methods met quality specifications derived from biological variation.