The Importance of Reagent Lot Registration in External Quality Assurance/Proficiency Testing Schemes.

BACKGROUND: Providers of external quality assurance (EQA)/proficiency testing schemes have traditionally focused on evaluation of measurement procedures and participant performance and little attention has been given to reagent lot variation. The aim of the present study was to show the importance of reagent lot registration and evaluation in EQA schemes. METHODS: Results from the Noklus (Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories) urine albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) and prothrombin time international normalized ratio (INR) point-of-care EQA schemes from 2009-2015 were used as examples in this study. RESULTS: The between-participant CV for Afinion ACR increased from 6%-7% to 11% in 3 consecutive surveys. This increase was caused by differences between albumin reagent lots that were also observed when fresh urine samples were used. For the INR scheme, the CoaguChek INR results increased with the production date of the reagent lots, with reagent lot medians increasing from 2.0 to 2.5 INR and from 2.7 to 3.3 INR (from the oldest to the newest reagent lot) for 2 control levels, respectively. These differences in lot medians were not observed when native patient samples were used. CONCLUSIONS: Presenting results from different reagent lots in EQA feedback reports can give helpful information to the participants that may explain their deviant EQA results. Information regarding whether the reagent lot differences found in the schemes can affect patient samples is important and should be communicated to the participants as well as to the manufacturers. EQA providers should consider registering and evaluating results from reagent lots.

Point-of-care urine albumin in general practice offices: effect of participation in an external quality assurance scheme.

BACKGROUND: The Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories (Noklus) offers external quality assurance (EQA) schemes (EQASs) for urine albumin (UA) annually. This study analyzed the EQA results to determine how the analytical quality of UA analysis in general practice (GP) offices developed between 1998 (n=473) and 2012 (n=1160). METHODS: Two EQA urine samples were distributed yearly to the participants by mail. The participants measured the UA of each sample and returned the results together with information about their instrument, the profession and number of employees at the office, frequency of internal quality control (IQC), and number of analyses per month. In the feedback report, they received an assessment of their analytical performance. RESULTS: The number of years that the GP office had participated in Noklus was inversely related to the percentage of "poor" results for quantitative but not semiquantitative instruments. The analytical quality improved for participants using quantitative instruments who received an initial assessment of "poor" and who subsequently changed their instrument. Participants using reagents that had expired or were within 3 months of the expiration date performed worse than those using reagents that were expiring in more than 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous participation in the Noklus program improved the performance of quantitative UA analyses at GP offices. This is probably in part attributable to the complete Noklus quality system, whereby in addition to participating in EQAS, participants are visited by laboratory consultants who examine their procedures and provide practical advice and education regarding the use of different instruments.