Method Precision and Frequent Causes of Errors Observed in Point-of-Care Glucose Testing A Proficiency Testing Program Perspective

被引:10
|
作者
Aslan, Berna [1 ]
Stemp, Julia [1 ]
Yip, Paul [2 ,3 ]
Gun-Munro, Jane [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Qual Management Healthcare, Ontario Med Assoc, Toronto, ON M5G 1E6, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Dept Lab Med & Pathobiol, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Hlth Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
关键词
POC glucose; External quality assessment; Proficiency testing; Analytic quality goals; Performance standards; QUALITY; METERS;
D O I
10.1309/AJCPP5YS2MVSKBYY
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
Objectives: Method imprecision, error rates, and explanatory causes that were identified in the Institute for Quality Management in Healthcare point-of-care (POC) glucose proficiency testing (PT) program were assessed in comparison with results obtained from laboratory glucose PT surveys. Methods: POC and laboratory glucose PT data were assessed from September 2009 to June 2011. Peer group means and coefficients of variation (CVs) were estimated using the robust algorithm recommended in the International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission 13528(E). Discordant finding investigations were also reviewed to determine the causes of significant and recurring errors. Results: POC glucose CVs were higher than laboratory method CVs (median CV, 4.5% and 1.6%, respectively). While all laboratory glucose results were within the performance limits, 305 (0.59%) of 51,379 POC glucose results exceeded limits. Investigations were required for 277 (0.53%) POC results. Pre- and postanalytical errors accounted for 76% of the discordant findings. Using wrong PT items, sample mix-up on the bench, and reporting results for the wrong sample were the most frequent reasons, while 21% of discordant findings identified manufacturer issues, and 3% were of unknown origin. Conclusions: Both method CVs and error rates were higher in POC than in laboratory glucose methods, even though larger performance limits were used for the assessment of POC glucose.
引用
收藏
页码:857 / 863
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Use of Stabilized Whole Blood for Glucose Proficiency Testing at Point-of-Care Sites
    Liang, Shu-Ling
    Schmith, Eric
    Hunsley, Bradford
    Sornson, Hal
    Clarke, William
    POINT OF CARE, 2008, 7 (02): : 64 - 68
  • [2] Critical Care Glucose Point-of-Care Testing
    Narla, S. N.
    Jones, M.
    Hermayer, K. L.
    Zhu, Y.
    ADVANCES IN CLINICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL 76, 2016, 76 : 97 - 121
  • [3] Management of a Point-of-Care Testing Program
    Gregory, Kim
    Lewandrowski, Kent
    CLINICS IN LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2009, 29 (03) : 433 - +
  • [4] Accuracy and precision of point-of-care testing for glucose and prothrombin time at the critical care units
    Yuoh, C
    Elghetany, MT
    Petersen, JR
    Mohammad, A
    Okorodudu, AO
    CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA, 2001, 307 (1-2) : 119 - 123
  • [5] RESPONSIBILITIES IN POINT-OF-CARE TESTING - AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE
    LAMB, LS
    ARCHIVES OF PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE, 1995, 119 (10) : 886 - 889
  • [6] The state of point-of-care testing: a european perspective
    Larsson, Anders
    Greig-Pylypczuk, Roman
    Huisman, Albert
    UPSALA JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2015, 120 (01) : 1 - 10
  • [7] Testing at the Point-of-Care Errors of Omission in the Patient Care Pathway
    Price, Christopher P.
    St John, Andrew
    Christenson, Robert H.
    POINT OF CARE, 2011, 10 (04): : 182 - 185
  • [8] Point-of-care testing for measuring haemolymph glucose in invertebrates is not a valid method
    Principe, Silas C.
    Augusto, Alessandra
    Costa, Tania M.
    CONSERVATION PHYSIOLOGY, 2019, 7
  • [9] POINT-OF-CARE GLUCOSE TESTING IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS
    Scimio, Kylie
    Carter, Chris
    El-Oshar, Seraj
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2018, 46 (01) : 202 - 202
  • [10] Perioperative Glucose Management: Point-of-Care Testing and Pseudohypoglycemia
    Radosevich, Misty A.
    Narr, Bradly J.
    Curry, Timothy B.
    Johnson, Rebecca L.
    A & A CASE REPORTS, 2015, 5 (01) : 13 - 14