Effect of Participating in a Quality Improvement System over Time for Point-of-Care C-Reactive Protein, Glucose, and Hemoglobin Testing

Bukve, Tone; Stavelin, Anne; Sandberg, Sverre

doi:10.1373/clinchem.2016.259093

Cited by 22 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another important factor, which was not investigated in the study by Bukve et al was that the POC testing laboratories participated in a quality improvement follow-up system in which they always had somebody to contact if they had problems with the tests. To the authors knowledge, this study is the first evidence that EQA for POC testing is useful ( 6 ). …”

Section: Convince the Participant That Eqa Is Importantmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…The reason for this is partly that it is difficult to isolate the “EQA factor” from other factors that can contribute to the improvement of the quality of the examination processes. In a recent paper by Bukve et al , looking at the development of the analytical quality for POC analyses during a period of 9 years, it could be shown that the number of times the participants participated in an EQA program for POC glucose, haemoglobin and C-reactive protein (CRP) testing, was an independent factor associated with improved analytical quality of these analytes ( 6 ). Other independent factors associated with improved analytical quality were type of instrument, performing internal quality control weekly, performing 10 or more patient tests weekly, and having laboratory-qualified personnel performing the tests.…”

Section: Convince the Participant That Eqa Is Importantmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such factors could for example be the frequency of running internal quality control, the number of tests performed per week, the profession of the test operator, and the number of employees ( 6 ). …”

Section: Feedback Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Essential aspects of external quality assurance for point-of-care testing

Stavelin¹,

Sandberg

2017

Biochem Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

External quality assurance (EQA) or proficiency testing for point-of-care (POC) testing is in principle similar to EQA for larger hospital laboratories, but the participants are different. The participants are usually health care personnel with little or no knowledge of laboratory medicine. The implication of this is that the EQA provider has to a) convince the participants that participation in EQA schemes are important, b) be able to circulate materials with reasonable time intervals, c) produce feedback reports that are understandable, and d) offer help and guidance to the participants when needed. It is also important that EQA for POC testing e) address the pre-examination, the examination and the post-examination processes, and f) that schemes for measurement procedures using interval or ordinal scale are offered. The aim of the present paper is to highlight important issues of these essential aspects of EQA for POC testing.

show abstract

Section: Convince the Participant That Eqa Is Importantmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Convince the Participant That Eqa Is Importantmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Essential aspects of external quality assurance for point-of-care testing

Stavelin¹,

Sandberg

2017

Biochem Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To account for the uncertainty of the definitive value, Norwegian Quality Improvement of Laboratory Examinations (Noklus) have added a fixed interval around the target value in their acceptance limits ( 34 ). When the acceptance interval is expressed as a percent, it might also be necessary to include a fixed unit interval below a concentration at which a percent is not reasonably achievable because the concentration-independent variability of a measurement procedure becomes a larger fraction of the acceptance interval.…”

Section: Knowledge Required To Interpret Eqa Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpretation of EQA results and EQA-based trouble shooting

Kristensen¹,

Meijer

2017

Biochem Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Important objectives of External Quality Assessment (EQA) is to detect analytical errors and make corrective actions. The aim of this paper is to describe knowledge required to interpret EQA results and present a structured approach on how to handle deviating EQA results. The value of EQA and how the EQA result should be interpreted depends on five key points: the control material, the target value, the number of replicates, the acceptance limits and between lot variations in reagents used in measurement procedures. This will also affect the process of finding the sources of errors when they appear. The ideal EQA sample has two important properties: it behaves as a native patient sample in all methods (is commutable) and has a target value established with a reference method. If either of these two criteria is not entirely fulfilled, results not related to the performance of the laboratory may arise. To help and guide the laboratories in handling a deviating EQA result, the Norwegian Clinical Chemistry EQA Program (NKK) has developed a flowchart with additional comments that could be used by the laboratories e.g. in their quality system, to document action against deviations in EQA. This EQA-based trouble-shooting tool has been developed further in cooperation with the External quality Control for Assays and Tests (ECAT) Foundation. This flowchart will become available in a public domain, i.e. the website of the European organisation for External Quality Assurance Providers in Laboratory Medicine (EQALM).

show abstract

“…Over time, EQA programme participation can improve the quality of laboratory testing [13]. Collectively, information from programmes can be used to (1) reduce bias and improve imprecision of the methods, (2) confirm the quality of analysis, (3) increase the confidence of the laboratory, (4) support the goals of harmonisation and standardisation and (5) provide evidence to confirm best testing practice.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%