| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Clinical Chemistry, Vol 39, 76-81, Copyright © 1993 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry
RW Jenny and KY Jackson
Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research, New York State Department of Health, Albany 12201-0509.
Proficiency testing (PT) is pivotal in assessing laboratory qualifications for certification and licensure. PT is expected to typify routine assay performance and determine whether the laboratory is producing clinically useful test results. Conventional schemes use mail-distributed test specimens and are often criticized as measuring the best possible laboratory performance, principally because of special practices associated with processing PT specimens. We used on- site proficiency tests and split samples to evaluate the ability of conventional PT schemes to accurately characterize routine laboratory performance. Using 412 assays of theophylline, performed routinely by 200 laboratories and subsequently in a reference laboratory, we found that the predictive value of PT performance in assessing quality of routine testing was high (100% for predicting substandard reliability of routine patient testing and 94% for excluding substandard reliability of patient testing). The imprecision of interlaboratory PT results was equivalent whether testing was observed (hand-carried specimens) or unobserved (mail-distributed specimens). Many methods used for determining theophylline concentration in serum were highly automated, closed, and precise analytical systems. The performance characteristics of these analytical systems are not easily manipulated by the analyst for purposes of improving PT outcome, and PT by use of mail-distributed test specimens is effective for assessing intralaboratory performance.
The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:
|
|
 |
|
  M. D. Delost, W. G. Miller, G. A. Chang, W. J. Korzun, and T. S. Nadder Influence of Credentials of Clinical Laboratory Professionals on Proficiency Testing Performance Am J Clin Pathol, October 1, 2009; 132(4): 550 - 554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Shahangian and S. R. Snyder Laboratory Medicine Quality Indicators: A Review of the Literature Am J Clin Pathol, March 1, 2009; 131(3): 418 - 431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. E. Huffstutter, P. M. Fischer, R. L. Black, M. H. Field, J. A. Kasch, J. S. Kroger, P. D. Rappo, P. B. Harr, L. H. Hilborne, and T. M. St John Accuracy of Physicians' Office Laboratory Results JAMA, July 8, 1998; 280(2): 129 - 132. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. M. Stull, T. L. Hearn, J. S. Hancock, J. H. Handsfield, and C. L. Collins Variation in Proficiency Testing Performance by Testing Site JAMA, February 11, 1998; 279(6): 463 - 467. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Hurst, K. Nickel, and L. H. Hilborne Are Physicians' Office Laboratory Results of Comparable Quality to Those Produced in Other Laboratory Settings? JAMA, February 11, 1998; 279(6): 468 - 471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
