BACKGROUND: While there have been ASVCP meeting discussions regarding quality assurance plans and lack thereof for in-clinic analyzers, there are little published data regarding in-clinic quality assurance and control practices. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was the identification of the common equipment used in hematologic, biochemical, urinalysis, and other testing, and assessment of quality control and assurance programs currently being performed in-clinic. METHODS: All members of the Veterinary Information Network (VIN) were solicited to participate in an online survey between July and September 2007. RESULTS: In total, 452 complete or partial responses were received. Eighty-nine percent of respondents (361/404) said that veterinary technicians (unlicensed, licensed, and registered) performed the majority of analyses. Eighty-eight percent (366/417) of respondents performed some quality assurance on their laboratory equipment, most commonly on chemistry (91%, 324/357), and hematology (84%, 292/347) analyzers, and least commonly on fecal analyses (57%, 148/260) and ELISA assays (25%, 65/256). Ignorance of how to perform quality assurance was the most commonly stated reason (49%, 25/51) for lack of a quality assurance program. The majority of practices (316/374) utilized manufacturer-provided reference intervals without further adjustment or assessment. Roughly one-third of respondents (126/374) used reference intervals from textbooks, which is discouraged by ASVCP guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the majority of respondents were not in compliance with ASVCP guidelines, illustrating the need for improved education of technical staff, veterinary students, and veterinarians regarding limitations of in-clinic laboratory equipment and the importance of regular quality control, maintenance, training, and reference interval development.
BACKGROUND: While there have been ASVCP meeting discussions regarding quality assurance plans and lack thereof for in-clinic analyzers, there are little published data regarding in-clinic quality assurance and control practices. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was the identification of the common equipment used in hematologic, biochemical, urinalysis, and other testing, and assessment of quality control and assurance programs currently being performed in-clinic. METHODS: All members of the Veterinary Information Network (VIN) were solicited to participate in an online survey between July and September 2007. RESULTS: In total, 452 complete or partial responses were received. Eighty-nine percent of respondents (361/404) said that veterinary technicians (unlicensed, licensed, and registered) performed the majority of analyses. Eighty-eight percent (366/417) of respondents performed some quality assurance on their laboratory equipment, most commonly on chemistry (91%, 324/357), and hematology (84%, 292/347) analyzers, and least commonly on fecal analyses (57%, 148/260) and ELISA assays (25%, 65/256). Ignorance of how to perform quality assurance was the most commonly stated reason (49%, 25/51) for lack of a quality assurance program. The majority of practices (316/374) utilized manufacturer-provided reference intervals without further adjustment or assessment. Roughly one-third of respondents (126/374) used reference intervals from textbooks, which is discouraged by ASVCP guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the majority of respondents were not in compliance with ASVCP guidelines, illustrating the need for improved education of technical staff, veterinary students, and veterinarians regarding limitations of in-clinic laboratory equipment and the importance of regular quality control, maintenance, training, and reference interval development.
Authors: Margaret E Gruen; Emily H Griffith; Sarah M A Caney; Mark Rishniw; B Duncan X Lascelles Journal: J Am Vet Med Assoc Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 1.936