Practices and Perceived Value of Proficiency Testing in Clinical Laboratories
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Add terms to the query box

Query box

Help
Clear All
i

Practices and Perceived Value of Proficiency Testing in Clinical Laboratories

Filetype[PDF-218.29 KB]


  • English

  • Details:

    • Alternative Title:
      J Appl Lab Med
    • Description:
      Background: Proficiency testing (PT) can have regulatory and nonregulatory uses, providing an effective tool for quality improvement. Clinical laboratories were surveyed to determine how they perceive PT and how they use PT results and materials to improve laboratory testing quality. Methods: All laboratories certified to perform nonwaived testing under the CLIA regulations expected to perform required PT were invited to participate in the survey. We examined respondents’ use of PT from 5 laboratory types: hospital, independent, public health, physician office, and “all other.” Respondents’ awareness of resources about PT was also examined. Several questions allowed responses on a categorical scale. Results: Varying proportions of the respondents (n = 769) used PT to identify problems in the preanalytic (48%), analytic (86%), and postanalytic (76%) phases of testing. Responses also showed that PT was important for demonstrating personnel competency (93%), inappropriate specimen handling (80%), incorrect result interpretation (84%), and other uses. Respodents purchased PT even when not required to do so (77%). Based on all responses, most considered PT worth the cost (65%). Conclusions: Laboratories, regardless of type, have found ways of using leftover PT samples and the information from PT event summaries to help improve laboratory quality. Our findings suggest many laboratories are not taking full advantage of PT to improve testing quality. Additionally, the study suggests a need to improve awareness of resources about PT.
    • Subject:
    • Pubmed ID:
      31903445
    • Pubmed Central ID:
      PMC6941662
    • Document Type:
    • Collection(s):
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • File Type:

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov