Background: External quality assessment schemes (EQAS) are conducted to evaluate user performance (participant assessment) and to assess different methods and instruments (method assessment). The quality of control materials is crucial to achieving these goals. Inconsistencies in between-lot variations detected by use of different control and sample materials may affect EQAS outcomes. Methods: For the Accu-Chek Sensor, Precision Xtra, Ascensia Elite, and HemoCue 201 glucometers, 3 different lots of glucose strips were used with each instrument. Method assessment results from analysis of capillary blood and 3 control materials were used to calculate between-lot differences. A simulation study was performed to evaluate the effect of between-lot variation on participant assessment results. Results: With the Precision Xtra, the results obtained with EQA control material mirrored those obtained with capillary blood, but for the other instruments, we found between-lot differences of as much as 1.3 mmol/L, which were substantially greater than those found with capillary blood and of clinical importance at decision limits. The simulation study showed an effect on participant assessment results related to the target values, with the percentage of poor results decreasing (38%, 10%, and 4%) with the use of common, method-specific, and lot-specific target values, respectively. Conclusions: Between-lot variation may influence participant EQA results for participant and method assessments. The clinical relevance of between-lot variation

BACKGROUND: Hemoglobin A 1c (Hb A 1c ) measurement by hospital laboratory instruments, but not by pointof-care (POC) instruments, has been recommended for use to diagnose diabetes mellitus. We evaluated results from 13 Hb A 1c external quality assurance (EQA) surveys over a 6-year period in Norway, from both POC instruments used in general practice (GP) offices and instruments in hospital laboratories, against the analytical quality specifications recommended for use of Hb A 1c to diagnose diabetes mellitus.

Available commercial control material for CoaguChek S is different from patient samples. This study demonstrates that split-sample survey is achievable, and is an acceptable alternative to traditional external quality assessment for point-of-care prothrombin time monitors where appropriate control material is difficult to obtain.

BACKGROUND:Providers of external quality assurance (EQA)/proficiency testing schemes have traditionally focused on evaluation of measurement procedures and participant performance and little attention has been given to reagent lot variation. The aim of the present study was to show the importance of reagent lot registration and evaluation in EQA schemes.

BACKGROUND The optimal situation in external quality assessment (EQA) is to use commutable materials. No previous study has examined the commutability of a whole-blood material for point-of-care (POC) testing. The aim of this study was to determine the commutability of the Norwegian Quality Improvement of Laboratory Examinations (Noklus) organization's “in-house” whole-blood EQA material for C-reactive protein (CRP), glucose, and hemoglobin for frequently used POC instruments in Norway and to determine the possibility of using a common target value for each analyte. METHODS The study was performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. The EQA material was pooled stabilized EDTA venous whole-blood containing different concentrations of the analytes. The EQA material and native routine patient samples were analyzed using 17 POC and 3 hospital instruments. The commutability was assessed using Deming regression analysis with 95% prediction intervals for each instrument comparison. RESULTS The EQA material was commutable for all CRP and hemoglobin POC instruments, whereas for glucose the material was commutable for all POC instruments at the lowest concentration analyzed [126.0 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L)] and for 3 POC instruments at all of the concentrations analyzed. CONCLUSIONS Noklus EQA participants using CRP and hemoglobin POC instruments now receive results that are compared with a reference target value, whereas the results for participants using glucose POC instruments are still compared with method-specific target values. Systematic deviations from a reference target value for the commutable glucose POC instruments can be calculated, and this additional information can now be offered to these participants and to the manufacturers.