The detection of problem analytes in a single proficiency test challenge in the absence of the Health Care Financing Administration rule violations.
The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1988 (CLIA 88) has dramatically changed proficiency testing (PT) practices having mandated (1) satisfactory PT for certain analytes as a condition of laboratory operation, (2) fixed PT limits for many of these "regulated" analytes, and (3) an increased number of PT specimens (n = 5) for each testing cycle. For many of these analytes, the fixed limits are much broader than the previously employed Standard Deviation Index (SDI) criteria. Paradoxically, there may be less incentive to identify and evaluate analytically significant outliers to improve the analytical process. Previously described "control rules" to evaluate these PT results are unworkable as they consider only two or three results. We used Monte Carlo simulations of Kodak Ektachem analyzers participating in PT to determine optimal control rules for the identification of PT results that are inconsistent with those from other laboratories using the same methods. The analysis of three representative analytes, potassium, creatine kinase, and iron was simulated with varying intrainstrument and interinstrument standard deviations (si and sg, respectively) obtained from the College of American Pathologists (Northfield, Ill) Quality Assurance Services data and Proficiency Test data, respectively. Analytical errors were simulated in each of the analytes and evaluated in terms of multiples of the interlaboratory SDI. Simple control rules for detecting systematic and random error were evaluated with power function graphs, graphs of probability of error detected vs magnitude of error. Based on the simulation results, we recommend screening all analytes for the occurrence of two or more observations exceeding the same +/- 1 SDI limit. For any analyte satisfying this condition, the mean of the observations should be calculated. For analytes with sg/si ratios between 1.0 and 1.5, a significant systematic error is signaled by the mean exceeding 1.0 SDI. Significant random error is signaled by one observation exceeding the +/- 3-SDI limit or the range of the observations exceeding 4 SDIs. For analytes with higher sg/si, significant systematic or random error is signaled by violation of the screening rule (having at least two observations exceeding the same +/- 1 SDI limit). Random error can also be signaled by one observation exceeding the +/- 1.5-SDI limit or the range of the observations exceeding 3 SDIs. We present a practical approach to the workup of apparent PT errors.
Cembrowski
G S
GS
Park Nicollet Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minn. 55416.
Hackney
J R
JR
Carey
N
N
D015982:Bias; D014487:Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.; D002624:Chemistry, Clinical / Q000592:standards*; D003198:Computer Simulation; D006801:Humans; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D011897:Random Allocation; D012984:Software; D014481:United States