Full Blood Count - Internal QC Protocol: a review by the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs (RCPAQAP) Pty Ltd - Haematology.

INTRODUCTION: The RCPAQAP (Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program) Haematology has undertaken an exercise to review the internal quality control protocol for full blood count (FBC) instrumentation as well as review the action taken by laboratories when nonconforming results are evident in the RCPAQAP proficiency testing reports. METHOD: A questionnaire was sent to laboratories enrolled in the RCPAQAP FBC module. Laboratories were asked to provide information with regard to the type of control measures used within their testing environment that would trigger alerts for nonconforming events. The questionnaire also reviewed the action taken by laboratories in response to nonconforming test results in their external QA reports. RESULTS: A total of 253 of the 850 laboratories enrolled in the FBC module returned a response to the questionnaire, which identified variation in the QC protocol used to identify nonconforming events on the FBC analyser, including the type of controls, control levels processed and the frequency of use. CONCLUSION: This questionnaire identified variation in the internal QC protocol used by laboratories, including the types of control measures used and the rules applied to identify nonconforming events. However, the majority of laboratories appear to follow the most favourable choice of actions supplied when reviewing results of external QA data.

Type 2M von Willebrand disease - more often misidentified than correctly identified.

INTRODUCTION: Appropriate diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (VWD), including differential identification of qualitative vs. quantitative von Willebrand factor (VWF) defects has important management implications, but remains problematic. AIM: The aim of the study was to assess whether 2M VWD, defining qualitative defects not associated with loss of high molecular weight (HMW) VWF, is often misidentified, given highly variable reported frequency ranging from 0 to ~60% of all type 2 VWD. METHODS: A comparative evaluation of laboratory ability to appropriately identify 2M VWD (n = 4) vs. HMW VWF reduction (n = 4), as sent to participants of an international external quality assessment programme. RESULTS: Laboratories had considerably greater difficulty identifying type 2M VWD, correctly identifying these on average only 29.4% of occasions, with the 70.6% error rate representing use of insufficient test panels (41.7%), misinterpretation of test results (10.0%) and analytical errors (13.3%). One type 2M case, giving a median of 49 U dL(-1) VWF:Ag, was more often misidentified as type 2A/2B VWD (46.7%) than 2M (34.8%). Another 2M case, giving a median of 189 U dL(-1) VWF:Ag, was instead often misidentified as being normal (non-VWD) (36.4%), with identifications of type 2A/2B VWD (13.6%) also represented. In comparison, errors in identification of HMW VWF reduced samples only averaged 11.5%, primarily driven by use of insufficient test panels (6.3%) or misinterpretation of results (4.2%) and infrequently analytical errors (1.0%). CONCLUSION: Type 2M VWD is more often misidentified (70.6%) than correctly identified as 2M VWD (29.4%), and potentially explaining the relative under-reported incidence of 2M VWD in the literature.

Laboratory diagnosis of von Willebrand's disorder: quality and diagnostic improvements driven by peer review in a multilaboratory test process.

Regular multilaboratory surveys of laboratories derived primarily from Australia, New Zealand and Southeast Asia have been conducted over the past 7 years to evaluate testing proficiency in the diagnosis of von Willebrand's disorder (VWD) and to assess changes to test practice. Participating laboratories (currently 45) are asked to perform their usual panel of tests for VWD, and then to self-interpret test results as to the likelihood (or not) of VWD, as well as to the potential subtype identified. Samples provided in the past two survey distributions (both conducted in 2003) were as follows. Survey part A/distribution 1: Normal donor plasma, plasma with borderline normal/reduced levels of VWF (x2) and plasma from an individual with type 2 A VWD. Survey part B/distribution 2 (family VWD study): Plasma from a father, mother and son with borderline normal/reduced von Willebrand factor (VWF), and a daughter with type 3 VWD. In line with previously published survey results, the interassay and within method coefficients of variation (CV) were similar for all assays (around 15-25%), although tending to be slightly higher for VWF:RCo and VWF:CB than VWF:Ag and FVIII:C. Most laboratories reported test values consistent with expected findings, and made correct interpretations or predictions regarding the nature of the samples, although discrepant assay results or interpretations are still seen in approximately 5-10% of responses (typically from laboratories using a more limited test panel or not performing the VWF:CB). Overall, problems with the non-identification of functional VWF discordance in type 2 VWD, the misidentification of functional VWF discordance in type 1 VWD, and difficulties in discriminating types 1 and 3 VWD appear to predominate. In comparison with previous surveys, performance of electro-immuno diffusion (EID) (or Laurel gel) procedures has now ceased, and a reduction in VWF:RCo and VWF:Multimer testing and an increase in latex immunoassay (LIA) testing is sustained. We conclude that laboratories are generally proficient in tests for VWD, and that diagnostic error rates are reduced when test panels are more comprehensive and include the VWF:CB.