Quality specifications, laboratory results, and performance level of preanalytical quality indicators
KEQAS no. | Preanalytical quality indicator | IFCC code | IFCC QS | Laboratory results (%) | Sigma value, 50% | IFCC QS-based performance level (% of laboratories) | Sigma-based performance level | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
High (≥) | Medium (between) | Low (≤) | 25th | 50th | 75th | High | Medium | Low | ||||||
1 | Misidentification errors | Pre-MisS | 0 | 0–0.040 | 0.04 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.006 | 5.64 | 35.71 | 64.29 | 0.00 | Very good | |
2 | Test cancellation rate | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0.149 | 0.349 | 0.601 | 4.20 | NA | NA | NA | Good | |
3 | Hemolyzed samples detected by visual inspection | Pre-HemV | 0.11 | 0.110–1.105 | 1.105 | 0.129 | 0.309 | 0.832 | 4.24 | 71.43 | 28.57 | 0.00 | Good | |
4 | Hemolyzed samples detected by hemolytic index | Pre-HemI | 0.69 | 0.690–3.230 | 3.23 | 0.100 | 0.546 | 2.131 | 4.16 | 47.62 | 52.38 | 0.00 | Good | |
5 | Rejected samples due to hemolysis | Pre-HemR | 0.049 | 0.049–0.882 | 0.882 | 0.007 | 0.197 | 0.712 | 4.38 | 95.24 | 4.76 | 0.00 | Good | |
6 | Recollected samples due to hemolysis | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0.003 | 0.063 | 0.494 | 4.74 | NA | NA | NA | Good | |
7 | Incorrect fill level | Pre-InsV | 0.02 | 0.020–0.140 | 0.14 | 0.017 | 0.043 | 0.085 | 4.83 | 90.48 | 9.52 | 0.00 | Good | |
8 | Inappropriate sample-anticoagulant volume ratio | Pre-SaAnt | 0.07 | 0.070-0.770 | 0.77 | 0.046 | 0.292 | 0.537 | 4.26 | 88.10 | 11.90 | 0.00 | Good | |
9 | Clotted CBC samples | PreClot | 0.08 | 0.08–0.402 | 0.402 | 0.085 | 0.299 | 0.432 | 4.25 | 92.86 | 7.14 | 0.00 | Good | |
10 | Incorrect sample type (wrong container) | Pre-WroCo | 0.01 | 0.010-0.024 | 0.024 | 0.004 | 0.014 | 0.022 | 5.14 | 88.10 | 11.90 | 0.00 | Very good | |
11 | Recollected samples (due to errors caused inside the laboratory) | Out-RecLab | NA | NA | NA | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.030 | 5.53 | NA | NA | NA | Very good | |
12 | Recollected samples (due to errors caused outside the laboratory) | Out-RecOff | NA | NA | NA | 0.000 | 0.009 | 0.178 | 5.24 | NA | NA | NA | Very good | |
13 | Unsuitable samples for damage during transportation | Pre-DamS | 0 | 0–0 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 6.00 | 40.48 | 59.52 | 0.00 | Very good | |
14 | Unsuitable samples for excessive transportation time | Pre-ExcTim | 0 | 0–0 | 0 | 0.013 | 0.475 | 6.476 | 4.73 | 2.38 | 97.62 | 0.00 | Good | |
15 | Incorrect sample type (wrong or inappropriate matrix) | Pre-WroTy | 0.002 | 0.002–0.021 | 0.021 | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.013 | 5.36 | 64.29 | 35.71 | 0.00 | Very good | |
16 | Samples not received | Pre-NotRec | 0.09 | 0.090–0.889 | 0.889 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 6.00 | 40.48 | 59.52 | 0.00 | Very good | |
17 | Contaminated samples (excluding microbiological samples) | Pre-Cont | 0.01 | 0.010–0.070 | 0.07 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 6.00 | 52.38 | 47.62 | 0.00 | Very good | |
18 | Samples transported at inappropriate temperature | Pre-InTem | 0 | 0–1.260 | 1.26 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.526 | 5.93 | 14.29 | 85.71 | 0.00 | Very good | |
19 | Samples collected at inappropriate time of sample collection | Pre-InTime | 0 |
0–0.346 |
0.346 |
0.000 | 0.002 | 0.014 | 5.66 | 14.29 | 85.71 | 0.00 | Very good | |
20 | Unsuitable samples for storage problems (temperature, time, etc.) | Pre-NotSt | 0 | 0–0.004 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 5.95 | 19.05 | 80.95 | 0.00 | Very good | |
21 | Samples with inappropriate fasting | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0.000 | 0.004 | 0.010 | 5.47 | NA | NA | NA | Very good | |
22 | Samples with fibrin clot | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0.001 | 0.007 | 0.059 | 5.35 | NA | NA | NA | Very good | |
23 | Samples with reprinted barcode | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0.003 | 0.054 | 0.246 | 4.80 | NA | NA | NA | Good |
Abbreviations: KEQAS, Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service; IFCC, International Federation of Clinical Chemistry; QS, quality specification; NA, not available; CBC, complete blood count.
*The quality specification for samples collected at an inappropriate time (IFCC code, Pre-InTime) was adopted from the 2015 data of the Model of Quality Indicators project.