|
|

Example data for this application:
Each individual test has its own quality requirements in clinical or analytical terms. For practical purposes, the CLIA proficiency testing criteria for acceptability provide the minimum total error requirements for all regulated tests. For example, the total error that is allowable for a hemoglobin method at a decision level or target value of 9 g/dL is 7%. This means a test result should be correct within 0.63 g/dL.
Method performance can be assessed from initial method evaluation studies, on-going validation studies, and current performance on internal and external control materials. It is best that these performance characteristics reflect how the method works in your laboratory, however, estimates can also be obtained from evaluation studies in the literature and from manufacturers claims in product labeling. In this example, our hemoglobin method has a 0.117 g/dL SD and no bias.
The CV and bias must be expressed in percentages. Use the control level (the level at which you run controls, a target value where a small change becomes important, etc.) as a basis for calculation. For hemoglobin, this level is 9 g/dL. Now if your SD is 0.117 g/dL, then the %CV is 0.117/9 = 1.3%. The calculation for bias is easy - if there is no bias, then the % bias is 0 as well.
Since the analytical quality requirement is 7%, we should look at OPSpecs charts for a 7% allowable total error, or TEa. Furthermore, if the instrument for our method runs three control materials, then we want to look at control rules with numbers of measurement (N's) of 3 and 6. Thus, we want to look at OPSpecs charts for a 7% analytical quality requirement and N's of 3 and 6. There are several ways to obtain these OPSpecs charts. For those with a computer, the QC Validator program will produce OPSpecs charts for any quality requirement and three different levels of error detection (90% AQA, 50% AQA, and 25% AQA). For this example, however, we are going consult an OPSpecs Manual, which is a library of OPSpecs charts for common control rules and quality requirements. An index of charts tells us that we can find the relevant OPSpecs charts on pages 3-50 and 3-51 of the OPSpecs Manual, Expanded Edition. A two page layout displays 4 OPSpecs charts in the following order:
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
The objective is to achieve 90% error detection with the lowest N possible. Thus, you start by looking at OPSpecs chart with the highest error detection and lowest N.
For more information about OPSpecs charts, click here.
| Check the key at the right of the graph to match up the lines that passed above your operating point with the control rules and N's they represent. Note the column labelled Pfr lists the false rejection of each control rule. Ideally, you want to aim for a Pfr of 5% or less. |
|
In our example, we have five choices:
Of the five control rules above the operating point, the 12s control rule with N=4 will have an 14% false rejection rate. That means even if your method is stable and has no problems, you will still have an out-of-control signal about every seventh run. This is an unacceptable level of false alarms. The second QC procedure is a 13s/2of32s/R4s /31s multirule with N=4 has a 2% false rejection rate. This is an excellent rate, but the multirule may be too complicated for many laboratories to implement. The third QC procedure, 12.5s has a 3% false rejection rate -- good but we can still do it better (and simpler). The fourth, 13s/2of32s/R4s has a rejection rate of just 1%, but again, a multirule may be too difficult to implement. Finally, the 13s control rule has a false rejection rate of 1%. This is a simple control rule with very low false rejection rate.
Conclusion: The 13s single rule with N=3 satisfies our conditions by providing more than 90% error detection with less than 5% false rejection. This is the control rule we choose for the method.
Note:In situations where 90% error detection cannot be achieved by increasing N and/or using multi-rule criteria, then you may consider optimizing performance for the observed or expected stability of the process (frequency of errors). Consider 50% error detection for moderately stable processes. Consider 25% error detection for highly stable processes that seldom have problems.
7. Adopt a total QC strategyThe Total QC strategy includes statistical QC, as well as other QC components such as preventive maintenance, system function checks, measurement validation tests, patient data QC, and finally quality improvement. The appropriate balance of these TQC components can be decided based on the error detection that is available from your statistical QC procedure. |
|
Conclusion: In our example, we achieved high error detection (greater than 90%) and low false rejection (less than 5%), with an N of only 3. Therefore, we can rely on statistical QC, so we choose a High Ped TQC strategy. We can now minimize our QC costs for this test and concentrate our energies on the more difficult tests in our laboratory.
For more information about TQC strategies, click here.
This QC planning process should be repeated whenever there are changes in the performance of the method. If performance improves, it may be possible to widen the control limits or lower the N. If performance deteriorates, it may be necessary to increase the amount of QC, increasing N and changing the control rules to narrow our limits, or increasing the rules to form multirule procedures.
Changes in imprecision and inaccuracy can
be examined using the same OPSpecs chart. For instance, if the
bias increased to 1.0%, we can assess its QC effects by plotting
a new operating point of 1.3% CV and 1.0% bias (red dot). With
this new bias, it would no longer be possible to control the test
with a 13s single rule or a 13s/2of32s/R4s
multirule with N=3. If bias increased to 1.5% (blue dot), we would
have to use the 13s/2of32s/R4s/31s
multirule. If, on the other hand, we could maintain the zero bias
and reduce imprecision from 1.3% to 1.0% (green dot), we
could use the 13.5s control rule, which has essentially
no false rejection.
Using QC Validator (and automatic QC selection):If we had used QC Validator for the original example, we would have entered all the example data into the parameters screen. Click on the icon at right to see a full-size screen shot of what the parameters screen would look like: |
|
After entering the data, you
would click on the 3 Materials button. (Why the three materials
button? Because you are running three levels of control.) 