Practical Laboratory Medicine (Nov 2022)

Lot verification practices in Ontario clinical chemistry laboratories - Results of a patterns-of-practice survey

  • Angela C. Rutledge,
  • Anna Johnston,
  • Ronald A. Booth,
  • Kika Veljkovic,
  • Dana Bailey,
  • Hilde Vandenberghe,
  • Gayle Waite,
  • Lynn C. Allen,
  • Andrew Don-Wauchope,
  • Pak Cheung Chan,
  • Julia Stemp,
  • Pamela Edmond,
  • Victor Leung,
  • Berna Aslan

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 32
p. e00300

Abstract

Read online

Objectives: Verifying new reagent or calibrator lots is crucial for maintaining consistent test performance. The Institute for Quality Management in Healthcare (IQMH) conducted a patterns-of-practice survey and follow-up case study to collect information on lot verification practices in Ontario. Methods: The survey had 17 multiple-choice questions and was distributed to 183 licensed laboratories. Participants provided information on materials used and approval/rejection criteria for their lot verification procedures for eight classes of testing systems. The case study provided a set of lot comparison data and was distributed to 132 laboratories. Responses were reviewed by IQMH scientific committees. Results: Of the 175 laboratories that responded regarding reagent lot verifications, 74% verified all tests, 11% some, and 15% none. Of the 171 laboratories that responded regarding calibrator lot verifications, 39% verified all calibrators, 4% some, and 57% none. Reasons for not performing verifications ranged from difficulty performing parallel testing to high reagent cost. For automated chemistry assays and immunoassays, 23% of laboratories did not include patient-derived materials in reagent lot verifications and 42% included five to six patient materials; 58% of laboratories did not include patient-derived materials in calibrator lot verifications and 23% included five to six patient materials. Different combinations of test-specific rules were used for acceptance criteria. For a failed lot, 98% of laboratories would investigate further and take corrective actions. Forty-three percent of laboratories would accept the new reagent lot in the case study. Conclusion: Responses to the survey and case study demonstrated variability in lot verification practices among laboratories.

Keywords