1. bookVolume 28 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2284-5623
First Published
08 Aug 2013
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Quality Control Strategy for Automated CBC: A Laboratory Point of View Deducted from an Internal Study Organised in an Emergency Laboratory

Published Online: 07 Feb 2020
Page range: 19 - 27
Received: 05 Sep 2019
Accepted: 22 Jan 2020
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2284-5623
First Published
08 Aug 2013
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to determine the performance of the total testing process of complete blood count (CBC) on two different instruments in an emergency setting of a county hospital, and to design an appropriate internal quality control plan.

Materials and method: Two models of Statistical Quality Control (SQC) were evaluated on Sysmex XT-1800i and Cell-Dyne Ruby: 3 levels of commercial blood every 8 hours (N=9) and an alternative model using 3 levels every 12 hours (N=6) as shift changes. Total Error (TE) was calculated using the formula: TE=Bias%+1.65xCV%; Sigma score was calculated using the formula: Sigma=[(TEa%–Bias%]/CV%. Values for coefficient of variation (CV%) and standard deviation (SD) were obtained from laboratory data and Bias% from proficiency testing. For the pre-analytical phase Sigma score was calculated, while for post-analytical phase the turnaround time (TAT) was assessed.

Results: TE for all directly measured parameters, for both instruments, had lower values than Total Error allowable (TEa). CV% for almost all parameters had lower values than CV% derived from biological variation except for platelets (PLT) at low level on Sysmex XT-1800i and red blood cells (RBC) on Cell-Dyne Ruby. Sigma score ranged from as low as 2 to 10. Sigma score for pre-analytical phase was 4.2 and turnaround time was 36 minutes on average.

Conclusions: Given the performances of the total testing process implemented for CBC in our laboratory, performing the internal control after every 50 samples/batch seems to fulfill both the Health Ministry Order (HMO) 1301/2007 and International Organization for Standardization ISO 15189:2013 recommendation. All quality instruments must work together to assure better patient results and every laboratory should design its own control plan that is appropriate for better quality achievement.

Keywords

1. www.ASRO.ro (Asociatia de Standardizare din Romania) Standard SR EN ISO 15189:2013. 2013:37.Search in Google Scholar

2. Statland BE. Medical decision level. Westgard QC Inc. Basic QC Practices, 4th Edition. Madison WI. 2016:112-6.Search in Google Scholar

3. Westgard JO. Complying with CLIA QC Regulations. Westgard QC Inc. Basic QC Practices, 4th Edition, Madison WI. 2016:171-88.Search in Google Scholar

4. Westgard JO. Analytical Performance Capability. West-gard QC Inc. Six Sigma Quality Design and Control, 2nd Editiond, Madison WI. 2016:45.Search in Google Scholar

5. CLSI. User Verification of Precision and estimation of Bias; Approved Guideline-Third Edition CLSI document EP15-A3.Wayne, PA:Clinical and laboraty Standards Institute;2014.Search in Google Scholar

6. Bull BS, Elashoff RM, Heilbron DC, Couperus J,A. Study of various estimators for the derivation of quality control procedures from patient erytrocite indices. Am J Clin Pathol. 1974;61(4):473-81. DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/61.4.47310.1093/ajcp/61.4.4734816793Search in Google Scholar

7. Parvin CA. Assesing the impact of the frequency of quality control testing on the quality of reported patient results. Clin Chem. 2008;4(12):2049-54. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2008.11363910.1373/clinchem.2008.11363918927244Search in Google Scholar

8. Yago M. Selecting Statistical Quality Control Procedures for Limiting the Impact of Increases in Analytical Random Error on Patient Safety. Clin Chem. 2017;63(5):1022-30. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2016.26768210.1373/clinchem.2016.26768228302731Search in Google Scholar

9. Cembrowski GS, Westgard JO. Quality control of multichannel hematology analyzers: evaluation of Bull’s algorithm. Am J Clin Pathol. 1985;83(3):337-45. DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/83.3.33710.1093/ajcp/83.3.3373976570Search in Google Scholar

10. Westgard JO, Smith FA, Mountain PJ, Boss S. Design and assessment of average of normals patient data algorithms to maximize run lenghts for automatic process control. Clin Chem 1996;42(10):1683-88. DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/42.10.168310.1093/clinchem/42.10.1683Search in Google Scholar

11. van Rossum H. Moving average quality control: principles, practical application and future perspectives. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2019;57(6):773-82. DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2018-079510.1515/cclm-2018-079530307894Search in Google Scholar

12. Vis JY, Huisman A. Verification and quality control of routine hematology analyzers. Int J Lab Hematol. 2016;38 (suppl 1):100-9. DOI: 10.1111/ijlh.1250310.1111/ijlh.1250327161194Search in Google Scholar

13. Lewis SM. Quality control: good laboratory practice - an overview of quality assurance. WHO/LAB/98.4 Available at https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/ (last access 09/04/2019)Search in Google Scholar

14. Carraro P, Plebani M. Errors in a stat laboratory:types and frequencies 10 years later. Clin Chem. 2017; 53(7):1338-42. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2007.08834410.1373/clinchem.2007.08834417525103Search in Google Scholar

15. Binzari E, Zaharia M, Barbu S, Oprea OR, Dobreanu M Hemolysis has no influence on routine coagulation tests without anticoagulant therapy-a referral Romanian emergency hospital laboratory experience. Rev Romana Med Lab. 2019; 27 (4):375-82. DOI: 10.2478/rrlm-2019-003410.2478/rrlm-2019-0034Search in Google Scholar

16. Hawkins RC. Laboratory Turnaround Time. Clin Biochem Rev. 2007;28(4):179-94.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo