Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry · 2026
Evaluation of external quality assessment results of 15 clinical laboratory quality indicators in China from 2019 to 2021.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Du Yuxuan, Wang Zhiguo, Zhang Zhixin, Wang Wei, Liu Jiali, Ma Jie
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study analyzed external quality assessment (EQA) results for 15 clinical laboratory quality indicators (QIs) in China from 2019 to 2021 to evaluate error-influencing factors, benchmark performance against international standards and inform preliminary quality specifications.
METHODS: Data for 15 QIs were collected via a web-based EQA system from 2019 to 2021. Variations across years were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Kruskal Wallis H test.
RESULTS: Participation rates exceeded 75% for most indicators. Specimen acceptability indicators improved significantly over time. Pre-examination and intra-laboratory turnaround times (TATs) for routine and stat samples remained generally stable over the study period, except for a slight but significant increase in intra-laboratory TAT for stat samples (p < 0.001). The median rate of tests covered by an EQA-proficiency testing (PT) control reached 100%, whereas the rates of tests covered by internal quality control (IQC) and inter-laboratory comparison required improvement. The median rate of unacceptable performances in EQA-PT schemes from 2019 to 2021 was 0%, while the 75th percentile reached nearly 4%. This finding reveals considerable performance variation among individual laboratories. Reporting-related indicators yielded satisfactory results. Most laboratories achieved 100% for timely critical value notification, despite statistically significant inter-annual variations (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall laboratory quality improved from 2019 to 2021. Deficiencies in tests covered by IQC and inter-laboratory comparison require targeted improvements and sustained monitoring of quality indicators.
METHODS: Data for 15 QIs were collected via a web-based EQA system from 2019 to 2021. Variations across years were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Kruskal Wallis H test.
RESULTS: Participation rates exceeded 75% for most indicators. Specimen acceptability indicators improved significantly over time. Pre-examination and intra-laboratory turnaround times (TATs) for routine and stat samples remained generally stable over the study period, except for a slight but significant increase in intra-laboratory TAT for stat samples (p < 0.001). The median rate of tests covered by an EQA-proficiency testing (PT) control reached 100%, whereas the rates of tests covered by internal quality control (IQC) and inter-laboratory comparison required improvement. The median rate of unacceptable performances in EQA-PT schemes from 2019 to 2021 was 0%, while the 75th percentile reached nearly 4%. This finding reveals considerable performance variation among individual laboratories. Reporting-related indicators yielded satisfactory results. Most laboratories achieved 100% for timely critical value notification, despite statistically significant inter-annual variations (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall laboratory quality improved from 2019 to 2021. Deficiencies in tests covered by IQC and inter-laboratory comparison require targeted improvements and sustained monitoring of quality indicators.