Unraveling Proficiency Testing – Part II

The class was taught by Juliana Barroso, a biologist specializing in Clinical Laboratory Sciences and In Vitro Diagnostics (Unigranrio), and Technical Supervisor of Service Management at Controllab.

This session continues the class “Unraveling Proficiency Testing” which demonstrated the interaction between the laboratory and the service, helping with prevention and potential improvements related to the effective use of the tool. If you haven’t watched the first part, click here.

Questions & Answers

The following questions were not addressed during the Online Meeting.

I would like to know if there is an internal microbiology control result available, or if the laboratory performs it itself?

In general, internal controls related to the microbiology area (AFB, GRAM, Reference Strains, Certified Reference Materials, etc.) come with documents (inserts or certificates) that describe the qualitative results that should be obtained from the analysis of these materials. Considering the Reference Strains and Certified Reference Materials, for monitoring microorganism counts, the laboratory can perform sequential analyses that allow it to define its own metrics.

For cell counts and differentiations by image (hematoscopy, CSF cytology), is it possible to fix the image field (virtual slide)? This would avoid subjectivity in selecting fields and standardize the field for all participants. Is that an option?

At the moment, we are not able to implement this procedure. However, we emphasize that participants’ suggestions are always welcome and taken into account during our internal discussions focused on the continuous improvement of our services.

It’s important to note that, although we take great care in preparing the materials provided to participants, slight variations in the distribution of different structures on the slides may occur. For this reason, we recommend that all digitized areas be fully analyzed to assess the impact of such variations on the count, as a partial analysis of the case may compromise the final result.

Additionally, we define evaluation ranges to account for these small variations, so an exact count result is not required in such cases.

It would be helpful if the evaluation of each module already included a summarized count of total satisfactory, unsatisfactory, not performed, not evaluated, and educational results.

Currently, both the “Control Center” and the “Cumulative Summary” display the laboratory’s overall performance for each assay throughout the year—information that can support laboratories in their critical analysis. However, your suggestion will be taken into consideration in our internal discussions focused on the continuous improvement of our services.

Is there any material I can use to guide how to fill out the spreadsheet “PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN PROFICIENCY TESTING” available on Controllab’s website for the Veterinary sector?

The form itself contains some instructions for completing it. However, if you have any questions, we recommend contacting our customer service team so we can provide further clarification.

I recently had issues with material delivery by the postal service, and I don’t feel that Controllab provided sufficient support in this matter. I received completely thawed samples, and when I contacted Controllab, the only response I got was that the delay was the fault of the postal service. Should I proceed with testing using samples in this condition?

The materials sent for quality control purposes are packaged to remain stable despite variations in transport conditions. Most of the materials are lyophilized, which significantly reduces the impact of temperature on their stability. The more sensitive materials undergo testing to assess the potential for loss or deterioration during shipping.

However, we strongly recommend that participants contact Controllab whenever there is any concern about the stability of the received materials. This allows us to provide proper guidance regarding whether to proceed with the analysis, request a replacement, or monitor the results for potential impacts.

What is the response time for inquiries sent to atendimento@controllab.com.br? We face significant difficulty in closing cases, as new rounds are released before the previous ones are resolved, even after completing all internal procedures and consulting with the equipment's technical support.

We acknowledge that timely responses are essential to support laboratories in their investigations and corrective actions. In the case of technical inquiries, longer response times are often due to situations that require in-depth investigations, consultations with specialists, or contact with suppliers and equipment manufacturers. While this process is essential to ensure the quality of the responses, it may impact the turnaround time.

Additionally, some discussions may extend over the course of the cumulative year, which also directly affects the response time. In such cases, we can provide partial feedback before a final conclusion is reached.

What is the response time for questions sent to Controllab? Critical analysis of nonconformities and root cause investigations often depend on receiving timely responses to these inquiries.

In Controllab’s Indicators and Benchmarking program, there is an indicator where we need to report the “Total number of results evaluated in the PT” and the “Total number of unsatisfactory results in the PT.” Where does Controllab make this information easily accessible?

Regarding laboratory indicators, we recommend watching the recording of the Metricare Online Forum. It is available at Help > Metricare > Videos and Tutorials > https://controllab.com/videos-e-tutoriais/forum-online-metricare-ensaio-de-proficiencia-ep/

Our laboratory has difficulty filling out the benchmarking indicator for proficiency testing performance, as the indicator is monthly and Controllab usually takes more than a month to make the evaluation reports available. How should we proceed?

In the benchmarking report, we are reporting the data submitted in the month without considering the specific round. What is the standard procedure for this?

Is there any project to link the proficiency testing evaluation data (total evaluated and total unsatisfactory results) to the benchmarking indicator that assesses the laboratory’s performance in PT? Currently, this tallying process is entirely manual and very labor-intensive.