As all laboratory equipment ages and contains components that may degrade with time, initial and periodically scheduled performance assessment is required to verify accurate and precise results over the life of the instrument. As veterinary patients may present to general practitioners and then to referral hospitals (both of which may each perform in-clinic laboratory analyses using different instruments), and given that general practitioners may send samples to reference laboratories, there is a need for comparability of results across instruments and methods. Allowable total error (TEa ) is a simple comparative quality concept used to define acceptable analytical performance. These guidelines are recommendations for determination and interpretation of TEa for commonly measured biochemical analytes in cats, dogs, and horses for equipment commonly used in veterinary diagnostic medicine. TEa values recommended herein are aimed at all veterinary settings, both private in-clinic laboratories using point-of-care analyzers and larger reference laboratories using more complex equipment. They represent the largest TEa possible without generating laboratory variation that would impact clinical decision making. TEa can be used for (1) assessment of an individual instrument's analytical performance, which is of benefit if one uses this information during instrument selection or assessment of in-clinic instrument performance, (2) Quality Control validation, and (3) as a measure of agreement or comparability of results from different laboratories (eg, between the in-clinic analyzer and the reference laboratory). These guidelines define a straightforward approach to assessment of instrument analytical performance.

A retrospective study of cases of a unique intramural inflammatory mass within the feline gastrointestinal tract was performed in order to describe and characterize the lesion. Twenty-five cases were identified from archival surgical and postmortem tissues. The lesion most often occurred as an ulcerated intramural mass at the pyloric sphincter (n = 12) or the ileocecocolic junction or colon (n = 9); the remaining cases were in the small intestine. Seven cases also had lymph node involvement. The lesions were characterized by eosinophilic inflammation, large reactive fibroblasts, and trabeculae of dense collagen. Intralesional bacteria were identified in 56% of the cases overall and all of the ileocecocolic junction and colon lesions. Fifty-eight percent of cats tested had peripheral eosinophilia. Cats treated with prednisone had a significantly longer survival time than those receiving other treatments. We propose that this is a unique fibroblastic response of the feline gastrointestinal tract to eosinophilic inflammation that in some cases is associated with bacteria. The lesion is often grossly and sometimes histologically mistaken for neoplasia.

Point-of-care testing (POCT) refers to any laboratory testing performed outside the conventional reference laboratory and implies close proximity to patients. Instrumental POCT systems consist of small, handheld or benchtop analyzers. These have potential utility in many veterinary settings, including private clinics, academic veterinary medical centers, the community (eg, remote area veterinary medical teams), and for research applications in academia, government, and industry. Concern about the quality of veterinary in-clinic testing has been expressed in published veterinary literature; however, little guidance focusing on POCT is available. Recognizing this void, the ASVCP formed a subcommittee in 2009 charged with developing quality assurance (QA) guidelines for veterinary POCT. Guidelines were developed through literature review and a consensus process. Major recommendations include (1) taking a formalized approach to POCT within the facility, (2) use of written policies, standard operating procedures, forms, and logs, (3) operator training, including periodic assessment of skills, (4) assessment of instrument analytical performance and use of both statistical quality control and external quality assessment programs, (5) use of properly established or validated reference intervals, (6) and ensuring accurate patient results reporting. Where possible, given instrument analytical performance, use of a validated 13s control rule for interpretation of control data is recommended. These guidelines are aimed at veterinarians and veterinary technicians seeking to improve management of POCT in their clinical or research setting, and address QA of small chemistry and hematology instruments. These guidelines are not intended to be all-inclusive; rather, they provide a minimum standard for maintenance of POCT instruments in the veterinary setting.

Evidence-based guidelines for the performance of thromboelastography in companion animals were generated through this process. Some of these guidelines are well supported while others will benefit from additional evidence. Many knowledge gaps were identified and future work should be directed to address these gaps and to objectively evaluate the impact of these guidelines on assay comparability within and between centers.

Owing to lack of governmental regulation of veterinary laboratory performance, veterinarians ideally should demonstrate a commitment to self-monitoring and regulation of laboratory performance from within the profession. In response to member concerns about quality management in veterinary laboratories, the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ASVCP) formed a Quality Assurance and Laboratory Standards (QAS) committee in 1996. This committee recently published updated and peer-reviewed Quality Assurance Guidelines on the ASVCP website. The Quality Assurance Guidelines are intended for use by veterinary diagnostic laboratories and veterinary research laboratories that are not covered by the US Food and Drug Administration Good Laboratory Practice standards (Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Chapter 58). The guidelines have been divided into 3 reports on 1) general analytic factors for veterinary laboratory performance and comparisons, 2) hematology and hemostasis, and 3) clinical chemistry, endocrine assessment, and urinalysis. This report documents recommendations for control of general analytical factors within veterinary clinical laboratories and is based on section 2.1 (Analytical Factors Important In Veterinary Clinical Pathology, General) of the newly revised ASVCP QAS Guidelines. These guidelines are not intended to be all-inclusive; rather, they provide minimum guidelines for quality assurance and quality control for veterinary laboratory testing. It is hoped that these guidelines will provide a basis for laboratories to assess their current practices, determine areas for improvement, and guide continuing professional development and education efforts.

The purpose of this document is to provide total allowable error (TE ) recommendations for commonly analyzed hematology measurands for veterinary personnel. These guidelines define relevant terminology and highlight considerations specific to hematology measurands. They also provide reasons and guidelines for using TE in instrument performance evaluation, including recommendations for when the total observed error exceeds the recommended TE . Biological variation-based quality specifications are briefly discussed. The appendix describes the derivation of the hematology TE recommendations and provides resources for external quality assurance/proficiency testing programs and a worksheet for implementation of the guidelines.

Neither PBGM had exact agreement with the automated analyzer; however, the disagreement detected did not have serious clinical consequences. Our findings stressed the importance of using the same device for monitoring trends in dogs and using instrument-specific reference ranges.

Jugular venipuncture is recommended, but samples from IV catheters can be used. Consistent technique is important for serial sampling, and standardized sampling protocols are recommended for individual centers performing TEG/ROTEM. There is insufficient evidence to recommend use of a specific blood collection system, although use of evacuated blood tubes and 21-Ga or larger needles is suggested. Use of 3.2% buffered sodium citrate in a strict 1:9 ratio of citrate to blood is suggested. Suggested tube draw order is discard/serum, followed by citrate, EDTA, and then heparin. Samples should be held at room temperature for 30 minutes prior to analysis.