HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit an electronic Letter to the Editor about this paper Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cembrowski, G. S. Articles by Carey, R. N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cembrowski, G. S. Articles by Carey, R. N. Related Collections Laboratory Management

Adding Value to Proficiency Testing Programs

^a Author for correspondence. Fax 780-407-8599; e-mail cembr001@cha.ab.ca.

R. Neill Carey²

¹ Capital Health Authority, 4B1.24 Walter C. Mackenzie Centre, 8440 112th St., Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6G 2B7

² Peninsula Regional Medical Center, 100 East Carroll St., Salisbury, MD 21801

The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA 88) (1) have caused great changes not only in US laboratories but in clinical laboratories throughout the world. CLIA’s requirements for pre- and postanalytical control were harbingers of more complete approaches to the implementation of quality systems in clinical laboratories, such as the quality model just introduced by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (2). CLIA’s maximum allowable error specifications for proficiency testing (the so-called CLIA limits) are being used by manufacturers to help set analytical performance goals for new laboratory analyzers. These specifications have ignited a transatlantic debate (3) regarding the formulation of analytical goals based strictly on patient variation vs the CLIA goals, which were based on a host of variables, including physician surveys, patient variation, analytical performance, and even prior proficiency testing (PT) performance.

The enactment of CLIA 88 unraveled the comfortable existence of a few large PT providers who primarily served hospital laboratories. In the early 1990s, thousands of previously unregulated physician office laboratories were added to the PT pool. Many of these laboratories eventually subscribed to newly established PT providers whose missions were more closely aligned to the participants’ medical organizations, e.g., the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Society of Internal Medicine. As of 1998, there were 20 different CLIA-certified PT programs (4). The presumably decreased profitability of the PT business has led to a commoditization of PT products and less effort expended in the design and manufacture of PT specimens for analytes that are not directly regulated by CLIA.

Another result, coincident with the enactment of CLIA 88, was the development of PT programs that serve a narrow spectrum of users, such as those using instruments of a specific manufacturer. Finally, the requirement to . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:

				R. Ramani and V. Chaturvedi Proficiency Testing Program for Clinical Laboratories Performing Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Pathogenic Yeast Species J. Clin. Microbiol., March 1, 2003; 41(3): 1143 - 1146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Bonini, M. Plebani, F. Ceriotti, and F. Rubboli Errors in Laboratory Medicine Clin. Chem., May 1, 2002; 48(5): 691 - 698. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]