Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter January 13, 2020

Reference-mean-centered statistical quality control

  • Martín Yago EMAIL logo and Carolina Pla

Abstract

Background

Statistical quality control (SQC) procedures generally use rejection limits centered on the stable mean of the results obtained for a control material by the analyzing instrument. However, for instruments with significant bias, re-centering the limits on a different value could improve the control procedures from the viewpoint of patient safety.

Methods

A statistical model was used to assess the effect of shifting the rejection limits of the control procedure relative to the instrument mean on the number of erroneous results reported as a result of an increase in the systematic error of the measurement procedure due to an out-of-control condition. The behaviors of control procedures of type 1ks (k = 2, 2.5, 3) were studied when applied to analytical processes with different capabilities (σ = 3, 4, 6).

Results

For measuring instruments with bias, shifting the rejection limits in the direction opposite to the bias improves the ability of the quality control procedure to limit the risk posed to patients in a systematic out-of-control condition. The maximum benefit is obtained when the displacement is equal to the bias of the instrument, that is, when the rejection limits are centered on the reference mean of the control material. The strategy is sensitive to error in estimating the bias. Shifting the limits more than the instrument’s bias disproportionately increases the risk to patients. This effect should be considered in SQC planning for systems running the same test on multiple instruments.

Conclusions

Centering the control rule on the reference mean is a potentially useful strategy for SQC planning based on risk management for measuring instruments with significant and stable uncorrected bias. Low uncertainty in estimating bias is necessary for this approach not to be counterproductive.

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Parvin CA, Kuchipudi L, Yundt-Pacheco J. Designing QC rules in the presence of laboratory bias: should a QC rule be centered on the instrument’s mean or the reference mean? https://www.qcnet.com/Portals/0/Events/AACC%20Abst%20Poster%202012.pdf. Accessed: August 2019.Search in Google Scholar

2. Parvin CA. Assessing the impact of the frequency of quality control testing on the quality of reported patient results. Clin Chem 2008;54:2049–54.10.1373/clinchem.2008.113639Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Yago M. Selecting statistical quality control procedures for limiting the impact of increases in analytical random error on patient safety. Clin Chem 2017;63:1022–30.10.1373/clinchem.2016.267682Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Ye JJ, Ingels SC, Parvin CA. Performance evaluation and planning for patient-based quality control procedures. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;113:240–8.10.1309/V5BT-BAWP-1WBF-14W6Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Theodorsson E, Magnusson B, Leito I. Bias in clinical chemistry. Bioanalysis 2014;6:2855–75.10.4155/bio.14.249Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Becker D, Christensen R, Currie L, Diamondstone B, Eberhardt K, Gills T, et al. Use of NIST standard reference materials for decisions on performance of analytical chemical methods and laboratories; 1992. www.nist.gov/mml/csd/inorganic/upload/NIST_SpecialPub829.pdf. Accessed: November 2019.10.6028/NIST.SP.829Search in Google Scholar

7. Yago M, Alcover S. Selecting statistical procedures for quality control planning based on risk management. Clin Chem 2016;62:959–65.10.1373/clinchem.2015.254094Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Jones G, Calleja J, Chesher D, Parvin C, Yundt-Pacheco J, MackayM, et al. Collective Opinion Paper on 2013 AACB Workshop of Experts seeking Harmonisation of Approaches to Setting a Laboratory Quality Control Policy. Clin Biochem Rev 2015;36:87–95.Search in Google Scholar

9. Johnston A, Bourner G, Martin T, McFarlane A, Good D, Padmore R, et al. Guidance for quality control practices and precision goals for CBCs based on IQMH patterns-of-practice survey. Int J Lab Hematol 2019;41:15–22.10.1111/ijlh.12915Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Badrick T, Turner P. How should the QC targets be set with common analytes on multiple instruments? https://www.aacb.asn.au/documents/item/3084. Accessed: September 2019.Search in Google Scholar

11. Kuchipudi LS, Yundt-Pacheco JC, Parvin CA. Designing QC rules for multiple instruments: should a QC rule be centered on individual instrument means or on a fixed mean? Should the limits be based on individual instrument SDs or a fixed SD? https://www.qcnet.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Jf3SU-9BKmg%3D&portalid=0. Accessed: September 2019.Search in Google Scholar


Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-1034).


Received: 2019-10-08
Accepted: 2019-11-29
Published Online: 2020-01-13
Published in Print: 2020-08-27

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 29.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2019-1034/html
Scroll to top button