Clinical Chemistry AACC Online Job Center
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 38: 496-500, 1992;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jenny, R. W.
Right arrow Articles by Jackson, K. Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jenny, R. W.
Right arrow Articles by Jackson, K. Y.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 38, 496-500, Copyright © 1992 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Evaluation of the rigor and appropriateness of CLIA '88 toxicology proficiency testing standards

RW Jenny and KY Jackson
Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research, New York State Department of Health, Albany 12201-0509.

The proposed rule for the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA '88) describes uniform standards for the design of proficiency testing (PT) challenges and for the evaluation of laboratory performance. Successful performance on PT is a condition for laboratory certification by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. We conducted a retrospective evaluation of PT data collected from laboratories participating in the New York State therapeutic substance monitoring/quantitative toxicology PT program to determine how well laboratories performed by proposed PT standards. We found that the unsuccessful performance rate is very low (less than 0.4%) and that laboratories providing limited services are more susceptible to program sanctions than are full-service laboratories. The performance criteria are empirically fixed limits that are not consistent with either the state of practice or the analytical goals based on clinical requirements for good patient care. We suggest that the performance standards, if adopted, would be a weak challenge to the capability of today's therapeutic drug monitoring service and will not provide the impetus to bring analytical performance characteristics into full compliance with analytical goals.


The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
D. T. Holland, R. DiFrancesco, J. Stone, F. Hamzeh, J. D. Connor, and G. D. Morse
Quality Assurance Program for Clinical Measurement of Antiretrovirals: AIDS Clinical Trials Group Proficiency Testing Program for Pediatric and Adult Pharmacology Laboratories
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., March 1, 2004; 48(3): 824 - 831.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
R. W. Jenny and K. Y. Jackson-Tarentino
Causes of Unsatisfactory Performance in Proficiency Testing
Clin. Chem., January 1, 2000; 46(1): 89 - 99.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Clin. Microbiol.Home page
A. A. Reilly, I. F. Salkin, M. R. McGinnis, S. Gromadzki, L. Pasarell, M. Kemna, N. Higgins, and M. Salfinger
Evaluation of Mycology Laboratory Proficiency Testing
J. Clin. Microbiol., July 1, 1999; 37(7): 2297 - 2305.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.