|
|

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 leukocyte count method at a decision level or target value of 8 K/uL is 15%. This means a test result should be correct within 1.2 K/uL.
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 leukocyte count method has a 0.312 K/uL SD and no bias.
The method imprecision and bias should be expressed in percentages to use OPSpecs charts. Use the decision level (the level at which you run controls, a target value where a small change becomes important, etc.) as a basis for calculation. For leukocyte count, this level is 8 K/uL. Now if your SD is 0.312 K/uL, then the %CV is 0.312/8 = 3.9%. The calculation for bias is easy - if there is no bias, then the % bias is 0.
For a lesson on OPSpecs charts, click here.
Since the analytical quality requirement is 15%, we should look at OPSpecs charts for a 15% 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 15% 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 3-74 and 3-75 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.
| Again we plot the operating point at (x=3.9, y=0). Notice any difference this time? There are three lines above the operating point. |
|
5. Assess the probabilities for rejection.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 three choices:
The first multirule is a 13s/2of32s/R4s/31s/6x with N=6 and has a 7% false rejection rate. The rule is probably too complicated for most laboratories, but more importantly, it has a high false rejection rate. The second multirule is a 13s/2of32s/R4s/31s/6x with N=6 and has a 5% false rejection rate. This is not bad, but it is still complicated. The third QC procedure, 12.5s has a 6% false rejection rate -- which is a little high but it has the advantage of being simple to implement.
Conclusion: The 12.5s single rule with N=6 is the best choice for this method. It provides more than 90% error detection with 6% 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 multirule 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 acceptable false rejection (6%), with an N of 6. Therefore, we can rely on statistical QC, so we choose a High Ped TQC strategy. Even though the method can be well controlled, it would be desirable to improve method performance in order to reduce the number of control measurements that are needed and therefore reduce the cost of this testing process.
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 charts. For instance, if the
CV could be reduced to around 3.2%, we can assess its QC effects
by plotting a new operating point of (3.2, 0.0; red dot) on the
first OPSpecs chart we tried. With this new imprecision, it would
be possible to control the test with a 13s/2of32s/R4s/31s
multirule, a 13s/2of32s/R4smultirule,
or a 12.5s. All of these rules have much lower false
rejection and have N of 3 instead of 6. So by reducing the CV
by less than a percent, you can half the number of control measurements
you would need to make. What would happen if the CV could be reduced
to 2.5%?
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
click the 3 Materials button. (Why the 3 Materials button?
Because you are running three levels of control.) Through automatic
QC selection, Validator also chooses the 12.5s control
rule with N of 6 (indicated by the solid black line in the graph
and the key; the other rules have dotted or dashed lines). It's
the same rule you selected using manual inspection of OPSpecs
charts, but Validator has done the work for you (and in one step
instead of two). Validator also displays the other two control
rules that are possible choices if you decide not to use the 12.5s
control rule.
