Literature DB >> 6291415

Laboratory evaluation and assistance efforts: mailed, on-site and blind proficiency testing surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control.

D J Boone, H J Hansen, T L Hearn, D S Lewis, D Dudley.   

Abstract

During the last three years, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has conducted: 1) on-site surveys in which trained personnel visited laboratories that had experienced performance problems in the quarterly mailed proficiency testing (PT) program, reviewing the laboratories' analytical procedures by using carefully referenced samples to determine sources of errors and providing assistance in correcting them; 2) special assistance surveys in which carefully referenced samples were mailed to laboratories that had performed unsatisfactorily in routine mailed PT surveys and then telephone consultations were conducted to correct the problems; and 3) blind surveys in which carefully referenced samples were sent through normal patient sample acquisition routes to assess the actual day-to-day performance capability of the laboratories. Results suggest that on-site surveys by trained laboratory surveyors and special mailed assistance surveys can be very effective in identifying the source of analytical errors in laboratories previously found, through mailed PT surveys, to have performance problems. Blind-survey results indicate that good performance in mailed PT does not necessarily imply good laboratory performance with routine patient specimens. Although difficult to conduct, blind surveys should be conducted whenever the logistics can be worked out by contractors for laboratory services, clinicians using laboratory services, and the laboratories themselves to assure the continuation of quality service.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1982        PMID: 6291415      PMCID: PMC1650539          DOI: 10.2105/ajph.72.12.1364

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Public Health        ISSN: 0090-0036            Impact factor:   9.308


  1 in total

1.  Comparison of laboratory performance with blind and mail-distributed proficiency testing samples.

Authors:  L C LaMotte; G O Guerrant; D S Lewis; C T Hall
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1977 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.792

  1 in total
  5 in total

1.  Evaluation of mycology laboratory proficiency testing.

Authors:  A A Reilly; I F Salkin; M R McGinnis; S Gromadzki; L Pasarell; M Kemna; N Higgins; M Salfinger
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Relationship between performance in three of the Centers for Disease Control microbiology proficiency testing programs and the number of actual patient specimens tested by participating laboratories.

Authors:  C W Griffin; M A Mehaffey; E C Cook; S O Blumer; P A Podeszwik
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1986-02       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Internal quality assurance in diagnostic microbiology: A simple approach for insightful data.

Authors:  Valentin Scherz; Christian Durussel; Gilbert Greub
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program.

Authors:  Maddisen Neuman; Callan Hundl; Aimee Grimaldi; Donna Eudaley; Darrell Stein; Peter Stout
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 1.717

Review 5.  Latent tuberculosis: interaction of virulence factors in Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Authors:  Sadhana Sundararajan; Rajiniraja Muniyan
Journal:  Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 2.316

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.