ICSH review of internal quality control policy for blood cell counters

INTRODUCTION

This paper is a report of an ICSH review of policies and practices for internal quality control (IQC) policy for haematology cell counters among regulatory bodies, cell counter manufacturers and diagnostic laboratories. It includes a discussion of the study findings and links to separate ICSH guidance for such policies and practices. The application of internal quality control (IQC) methods is an essential pre-requisite for all clinical laboratory testing including the blood count (Full Blood Count, FBC, or Complete Blood Count, CBC).

METHODS

The ICSH has gathered information regarding the current state of practice through review of published guidance from regulatory bodies, a questionnaire to six major cell counter manufacturers (Abbott Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Horiba Medical Diagnostic Instruments & Systems, Mindray Medical International, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics and Sysmex Corporation) and a survey issued to 191 diagnostic laboratories in four countries (China, Republic of Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom) on their IQC practice and approach to use of commercial IQC materials.

RESULTS

This has revealed diversity both in guidance and in practice around the world. There is diversity in guidance from regulatory organizations in regard to IQC methods each recommends, clinical levels to use and frequency to run commercial controls, and finally recommended sources of commercial controls. The diversity in practice among clinical laboratories spans the areas of IQC methods used, derivation of target values and action limits used with control materials, and frequency of running commercial controls materials.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings and their implications for IQC Practice are discussed in this paper. They are used to inform a separate guidance document, which proposes a harmonized approach to address the issues faced by diagnostic laboratories.

ICSH guidance for internal quality control policy for blood cell counters

This paper is a description of the ICSH guidance for internal quality control (IQC) policy for blood cell counters. It follows from and links to a separate ICSH review for such policies and practices. The ICSH has gathered information regarding the current state of practice through review of published guidance from regulatory bodies, a questionnaire to six major cell counter manufacturers and a survey issued to 191 diagnostic laboratories in four countries (China, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom) on their IQC practice and approach to the use of commercial IQC materials. This has revealed diversity both in guidance and in practice around the world. There is diversity in guidance from regulatory organizations in regard to IQC methods each recommends, clinical levels to use and frequency to run commercial controls, and finally recommended sources of commercial control materials. The diversity in practice among clinical laboratories spans the areas of IQC methods used, derivation of target values, and action limits used with commercial control materials, and frequency of running commercial controls materials. These findings and their implications for IQC Practice are addressed in this guidance document, which proposes a harmonized approach to address the issues faced by diagnostic laboratories.

ICSH recommendations for modified and alternate methods measuring the erythrocyte sedimentation rate

INTRODUCTION

The gold standard for the determination of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) is the Westergren method. Other methods to measure the ESR have become available. They range from modest modifications of the Westergren method to very different methodologies. The ICSH therefore established a Working Group to investigate these new approaches and compile recommendations for their validation and verification.

METHODS

A panel of six experts in laboratory hematology examined the peer-reviewed literature and EQA surveys from over 6000 laboratories on four continents performing ESR testing. This information was used to create lists of ESR instrument manufacturers and their methods.

RESULTS

Only 28% of laboratories surveyed used the unmodified Westergren method, while 72% of sites used modified or alternate methods. Results obtained with the new instruments could differ from results obtained with the Westergren method by up to 142%. Different non-Westergren methods showed differences from each other of up to 42%. The new methods were often significantly faster, safer, and less labor-intensive. They reduced costs and often used standard EDTA tubes, eliminating the need for a dedicated ESR tube.

CONCLUSION

Based on the consensus of the Working Group, recommendations for manufacturers for the validation of new ESR methods were developed. In addition, a list of recommendations for laboratories that are moving to modified or alternate methods was compiled, addressing instrument performance verification and communications of results to clinical users.

Standardization of haematology critical results management in adults: an International Council for Standardization in Haematology, ICSH, survey and recommendations

INTRODUCTION

These recommendations are intended to develop a consensus in the previously published papers as to which parameters and what values should be considered critical. A practical guide on the standardization of critical results management in haematology laboratories would be beneficial as part of good laboratory and clinical practice and for use by laboratory-accrediting agencies.

METHODS

A working group with members from Europe, America, Australasia and Asia was formed by International Council for Standardization in Haematology. A pattern of practice survey of 21 questions was distributed in 2014, and the data were collected electronically by Survey Monkey. The mode, or most commonly occurring value, was selected as the threshold for the upper and lower alert limits for critical results reporting.

RESULTS

A total of 666 laboratories submitted data to this study and, of these, 499 submitted complete responses. Full blood count critical results alert thresholds, morphology findings that trigger critical result notification, critical results alert list, notification process and maintenance of critical results management protocol are described. This international survey provided a snapshot of the current practice worldwide and has identified the existence of considerable heterogeneity of critical results management.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations in this study represent a consensus of good laboratory practice. They are intended to encourage the implementation of a standardized critical results management protocol in the laboratory.