THE ANNUAL REPORT 2010 - 2011
CONTENTS
1.
Scheme Information
a.
Staff
b.
Contact Details
c.
Introduction
2.
Registered Participants
3.
CPA Accreditation
4.
Scheme Developments
5.
Scheme Audits & Performance Targets
6.
Distribution Year Statistics
a.
Scoring
b.
Antibiotics & Methods
c.
Returns per Distribution
d.
Method Performance
e.
Repeat Samples
f.
Poorly Performing Laboratories
g.
Laboratories Failing to Return
Department
of Medical Microbiology
Westbury-on-Trym
BS10 5NB
1. Scheme
Information
a. Staff
The staff
members responsible for ensuring the smooth running of the scheme for the
distribution year 2010 - 11 are as below
Scheme
Organiser Professor Alasdair MacGowan
Chairman
of the Management Group Dr Andy Lovering
Scheme
Managers Mr Alan Noel & Dr Mervyn
Darville
Scheme Packers Mrs
It was
decided to consolidate the roles of scheme manager and distribution manager
into two joint scheme manager positions. This will enable all aspects of the
running of the scheme to be performed by two people with equal status. This has
facilitated better organisation within the scheme.
b. Contact
Details
You can
get in touch with the scheme by post, telephone, fax and email:
Department
of Medical Microbiology
Westbury-on-Trym
Tel:
0117 3236214 (answer phone service only)
Fax:
0117 3238332
Email: ukneqas.antibiotics@nbt.nhs.uk
The
answer phone is checked daily for messages and a member of staff will get back
to you promptly.
c. Introduction
This
scheme provides a quality assessment service in antibiotic therapeutic drug
monitoring to allow laboratories to monitor their performance, from drug assay
through to submission of results. Twelve
distributions are circulated annually.
All participants can take any combination of six antibiotics in ~900ul
serum:
Amikacin,
Gentamicin*, Flucytosine, Teicoplanin, Tobramycin and Vancomycin*
*Gentamicin
and Vancomycin are distributed as a combined sample.
The
number of participants taking flucytosine remained the same. As in previous
years, flucytosine was not scored due to the low number of participants. Furthermore, zero-spiked and low-spiked
samples have been introduced more accurately to reflect the range of
concentrations seen in clinical samples. These samples are also not scored but
penalties were introduced for laboratories returning results greater than a set
threshold. Multiple transgressions in this way contribute to a laboratories
poor performance.
2. Registered
Participants
This
year our scheme continued to experience some loss of participants, mostly because
of the merger of pathology laboratories and the loss of antibiotic assay
testing in many microbiology laboratories within the
Table 1: Participation by analyte
|
Analyte |
Number
of Participants |
|
Amikacin |
61 |
|
Flucytosine |
5 |
|
Gentamicin |
195 |
|
Teicoplanin |
18 |
|
Tobramycin |
89 |
|
Vancomycin |
186 |
3. CPA
Accreditation
The scheme
was inspected January 2010, and retained accreditation until January 2012. It is
due to be re-inspected in January 2012. With the UKAS acquiring CPA Ltd, the
scheme will possibly be accredited against a new set of standards ISO 17043.
The scheme managers are currently in discussion as to what impact this will
have on the scheme.
4. Scheme
Developments
Members
of the Antibiotic Assay scheme staff are keen to make its QC material more
representative of clinical samples. To this end we distributed both zero-spiked
and low-spiked samples in the distribution year 2010 - 2011. As outlined above
these samples are not scored. This is because of the difficulty in performing
statistical analyses on “<” values and because of the potential for errors
to be magnified at low concentrations. Furthermore, we have introduced a
one-off penalty of a
score of zero for participants failing to return results and for returning
“>” values. Participants returning thus twice or more in a 6 month period
are sent a poor performer letter by the scheme organiser. These changes have
been approved by the steering committee.
We have
listened to our participants through the participation questionnaire in
relation to the scoring of the scheme and are currently in discussions to try
and modify the reports to make them easier to understand.
Web-reporting
was welcomed enthusiastically with now over 75% of laboratories return results
on-line. There has, however, been more reluctance at present to access reports
that way. As from April 2011, results return and report issuing are only
available online
The UK
NEQAS for Antibiotic Assay Scheme launched a pilot antifungal panel in
September 2010 and, after an initial slow response, the uptake by participants
has been steady and worldwide.
5. Scheme
Audits and Performance Targets
Table 2: Communication audit for the
distribution year
|
Communication
Type |
Number |
% |
|
Routine Query |
194 |
39.8 |
|
Enrolment Query |
35 |
7.2 |
|
Repeat Samples |
12 |
2.5 |
|
Back Samples |
27 |
5.5 |
|
Scoring Query |
10 |
2.0 |
|
Invoice Query |
53 |
10.9 |
|
Method Performance |
13 |
2.7 |
|
Results |
49 |
10.0 |
|
Web Entry |
33 |
6.8 |
|
Antifungal Panel Query |
35 |
7.2 |
|
Complaints |
27 |
6.5 |
|
Total |
488 |
100 |
The
scheme received and answered 488 queries during the last distribution year.
This is a marked increase on last year (total 385). This increase may be due to
the scheme management encouraging greater communication with its participants.
This was achieved by the scheme sending an increased number of notices (some of
which required feedback to improve the quality of the scheme) to our
participants during 2010 – 2011.
Complaints
|
Missing Sample |
13 |
|
Empty vial |
2 |
|
Invoice |
1 |
|
Extra papers |
1 |
|
Extra papers and samples |
1 |
|
Web-reporting problem |
4 |
|
Late samples |
5 |
|
Total |
27 |
As the
tables above show, there were 27 complaints in total. This is a reduction of
over 1% on the previous distribution year. 13 were regarding samples missing from
packages received (see below), 7 were regarding late or non-receipt of samples
and 1 was that the report forms are difficult to understand. Of the 7
late/non-receipt, the majority were from non-UK participants.
Packaging
errors
During
the distribution year there were 13 packaging errors, (9 for 2010 – 2011) in
all of which a sample was missing from the package. In each case the missing
samples was promptly dispatched. This was an increase
over the previous distribution year and has been discussed at packers’ meetings.
Some of the packing errors maybe a reflection of the increasing complexity of
laboratories with multiple analysers and therefore requiring multiple samples
sets.
Analyte
quality
With the
gradual shift towards antibiotic assays being performed on large chemistry
analysers, the scheme noticed that there was the possibility of a matrix affect
with the analysis of our tobramycin samples when prepared in delipidated,
defribrinated plasma. To counteract this, in September 2010 the scheme switched
to preparing tobramycin samples in the same pooled human serum as for
flucytosine, gentamicin, teicoplanin and vancomycin. The switch occurred after
validation of sample preparation by the scheme management.
6. Distribution
Year Statistics
In order
to understand the statistics provided with this report it may be helpful to
read the following information first. A
lengthier version of the scoring system is available online in the Participants
Manual (www.ukneqasaa.win-uk.net)
a. How
the Scheme is Scored
The
starting point for the scoring system is the All Laboratory Trimmed Mean
(ALTM). This is the mean value for each analyte in each distribution,
calculated after the removal of mistakes and grossly inaccurate results. The SD
and %CV are also calculated.
Laboratory
Performance
The
difference between a laboratory’s results and the ALTM is calculated as a
percentage (% ERROR) which may be positive or negative. This figure applies to
a single distribution only. In order to assess longer term performance, the
modulus (that is disregarding whether positive or negative) error mean of the
laboratory’s results for the last 6 months is calculated. To this value is
added 2SD, to yield the value shown on the report form as MEAN+2SD. The higher
this value the higher is the group and the lower the score.
Method and sub-method
performance
For each method and sub-method the
mean, SD and %CV are calculated. This enables a comparison to be made between
them. It is important to note, however, that some methods are used by few
laboratories and that some may be used on only a few occasions in a
distribution year. One poor performer in a small group will have considerably
more impact on the mean score than it will in a large group.
Causes of poor performance and the
potential clinical implications
For virtually all laboratories,
assay performance is always very good. The number of poor performers remains
small, but has increased with the introduction of more challenging samples.
Blunders are common but are not repeated every month by a single laboratory.
One main cause of poor performance is made by submitting a
single transcription error. A few mistakes are also made by the transposition
of two antibiotic assay results which will then result in a poor score for two
antibiotics for a number of months. Whilst noting that such
transcription/transposition errors will not have any adverse clinical impact, they are not mistakes that
can be ignored.
Another
commonly made error is the failure to multiply-up results when samples have
required dilution to bring them within assay range. Clearly, the failure to
multiply-up the results for clinical samples would be a serious error. Very occasionally a laboratory may assay the
wrong samples. These may be a previous month’s circulation, internal quality
samples or actual patient samples. All of these types of mistakes are potentially serious and such
laboratories should scrutinise and tighten their procedures to ensure this
cannot happen with clinical samples.
b.
Antibiotics and Methods
This
year has seen a considerable increase in the number of methods being used by
participants. Only methods with more than 13 participants are scored as a peer
group. In a change to our report forms participants can only see methods with
more than 13 participants (unless your lab happens to use a less widely used
method in which case the method results will appear).
The figures
below show the breakdown of all methods used by our participants by antibiotic.
The TDx or FLx has now become a minority method for amikacin, gentamicin,
tobramycin and vancomycin. For Teicoplanin, however, it remains the most widely
used method.
Table 3:
Antibiotics and Methods for Distribution Year 2010 - 2011
c. Returns
per Distribution
Table 4 shows information for each distribution of
each analyte. This includes the number of participants and the number of
non-returns, as well as some statistical data.
Table 4:
Participant Returns Per Distribution
|
DIST |
ANAL |
Parts |
No. |
Non-Rets |
W.I. |
|
SD |
CV |
|
2617 |
AMIK |
108 |
83 |
22 |
7.80 |
7.9 |
0.71 |
9.05 |
|
2616 |
AMIK |
108 |
81 |
21 |
2.50 |
2.6 |
0.37 |
14.39 |
|
2615 |
AMIK |
110 |
31 |
21 |
0.00 |
0.6 |
0.48 |
75.59 |
|
2614 |
AMIK |
110 |
83 |
22 |
25.70 |
26.2 |
1.73 |
6.60 |
|
2613 |
AMIK |
109 |
87 |
16 |
29.90 |
29.8 |
2.58 |
8.66 |
|
2612 |
AMIK |
109 |
87 |
16 |
20.10 |
20.5 |
1.14 |
5.57 |
|
2611 |
AMIK |
113 |
91 |
17 |
9.90 |
10.2 |
0.76 |
7.44 |
|
2610 |
AMIK |
111 |
90 |
17 |
4.90 |
4.9 |
0.45 |
9.33 |
|
2609 |
AMIK |
111 |
82 |
17 |
1.90 |
2.0 |
0.36 |
17.84 |
|
2608 |
AMIK |
112 |
95 |
13 |
39.60 |
39.2 |
2.33 |
5.94 |
|
2607 |
AMIK |
111 |
91 |
16 |
22.50 |
23.1 |
1.37 |
5.93 |
|
2606 |
AMIK |
111 |
88 |
19 |
14.60 |
13.6 |
0.93 |
6.80 |
|
2617 |
FLU |
10 |
6 |
3 |
80.00 |
83.6 |
10.81 |
12.92 |
|
2616 |
FLU |
10 |
5 |
4 |
49.90 |
47.9 |
6.30 |
13.15 |
|
2615 |
FLU |
10 |
4 |
4 |
19.10 |
18.9 |
4.21 |
22.28 |
|
2614 |
FLU |
10 |
4 |
3 |
6.10 |
8.6 |
2.36 |
27.57 |
|
2613 |
FLU |
10 |
4 |
5 |
102.10 |
89.3 |
8.49 |
9.50 |
|
2612 |
FLU |
10 |
5 |
4 |
41.70 |
40.6 |
5.81 |
14.30 |
|
2611 |
FLU |
10 |
5 |
4 |
69.30 |
66.9 |
2.09 |
3.12 |
|
2610 |
FLU |
10 |
4 |
4 |
28.60 |
26.2 |
6.03 |
23.03 |
|
2609 |
FLU |
11 |
7 |
3 |
56.50 |
54.1 |
5.22 |
9.65 |
|
2608 |
FLU |
11 |
7 |
4 |
91.70 |
86.9 |
12.12 |
13.95 |
|
2607 |
FLU |
10 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
2606 |
FLU |
10 |
7 |
2 |
126.20 |
112.9 |
13.45 |
11.91 |
|
2617 |
|
257 |
204 |
37 |
17.10 |
16.3 |
1.59 |
9.75 |
|
2616 |
|
255 |
151 |
37 |
0.30 |
0.4 |
0.20 |
48.43 |
|
2615 |
|
255 |
216 |
33 |
4.60 |
4.7 |
0.37 |
7.85 |
|
2614 |
|
255 |
219 |
31 |
5.50 |
5.5 |
0.39 |
7.15 |
|
2613 |
|
257 |
185 |
27 |
0.50 |
0.5 |
0.11 |
20.78 |
|
2612 |
|
259 |
222 |
31 |
3.50 |
3.5 |
0.29 |
8.10 |
|
2611 |
|
261 |
222 |
26 |
11.90 |
10.6 |
1.02 |
9.57 |
|
2610 |
|
260 |
81 |
33 |
0.00 |
0.2 |
0.12 |
54.72 |
|
2609 |
|
260 |
227 |
25 |
6.80 |
6.0 |
0.41 |
6.82 |
|
2608 |
|
264 |
233 |
24 |
1.50 |
1.3 |
0.15 |
11.51 |
|
2607 |
|
264 |
230 |
27 |
7.90 |
7.1 |
0.56 |
7.91 |
|
2606 |
|
265 |
231 |
28 |
2.30 |
2.1 |
0.20 |
9.43 |
|
2617 |
TEIC |
26 |
12 |
2 |
0.00 |
0.6 |
0.43 |
72.48 |
|
2616 |
TEIC |
25 |
21 |
3 |
49.30 |
46.2 |
4.52 |
9.77 |
|
2615 |
TEIC |
23 |
17 |
5 |
6.90 |
7.1 |
1.08 |
15.19 |
|
2614 |
TEIC |
23 |
19 |
3 |
82.40 |
78.6 |
7.53 |
9.58 |
|
2613 |
TEIC |
23 |
20 |
2 |
31.60 |
31.4 |
2.40 |
7.64 |
|
2612 |
TEIC |
25 |
20 |
3 |
10.10 |
10.2 |
0.78 |
7.69 |
|
2611 |
TEIC |
27 |
20 |
5 |
40.10 |
43.8 |
4.21 |
9.61 |
|
2610 |
TEIC |
28 |
20 |
3 |
2.50 |
2.8 |
0.79 |
28.27 |
|
2609 |
TEIC |
27 |
19 |
5 |
16.70 |
17.8 |
2.06 |
11.57 |
|
2608 |
TEIC |
28 |
21 |
4 |
61.20 |
53.7 |
3.15 |
5.87 |
|
2607 |
TEIC |
28 |
21 |
6 |
5.40 |
5.9 |
0.89 |
15.06 |
|
2606 |
TEIC |
28 |
21 |
5 |
20.10 |
17.8 |
1.85 |
10.37 |
|
2617 |
TOB |
136 |
103 |
27 |
4.40 |
3.4 |
0.46 |
13.38 |
|
2616 |
TOB |
132 |
99 |
26 |
14.30 |
14.1 |
1.83 |
12.96 |
|
2615 |
TOB |
131 |
103 |
25 |
1.90 |
1.9 |
0.26 |
13.68 |
|
2614 |
TOB |
131 |
96 |
28 |
5.70 |
5.6 |
0.63 |
11.29 |
|
2613 |
TOB |
130 |
30 |
21 |
0.00 |
0.2 |
0.20 |
96.04 |
|
2612 |
TOB |
135 |
103 |
25 |
3.20 |
3.2 |
0.38 |
11.94 |
|
2611 |
TOB |
136 |
109 |
23 |
7.90 |
8.8 |
0.88 |
10.05 |
|
2610 |
TOB |
139 |
97 |
27 |
0.50 |
0.6 |
0.13 |
23.08 |
|
2609 |
TOB |
141 |
111 |
23 |
12.10 |
11.3 |
1.52 |
13.44 |
|
2608 |
TOB |
141 |
117 |
20 |
1.00 |
1.1 |
0.14 |
12.85 |
|
2607 |
TOB |
142 |
114 |
23 |
6.90 |
6.2 |
0.65 |
10.50 |
|
2606 |
TOB |
143 |
85 |
22 |
0.30 |
0.3 |
0.10 |
28.18 |
|
2617 |
VANC |
258 |
160 |
41 |
1.60 |
1.6 |
0.61 |
37.22 |
|
2616 |
VANC |
256 |
206 |
41 |
40.20 |
41.5 |
4.69 |
11.31 |
|
2615 |
VANC |
256 |
211 |
38 |
14.30 |
14.9 |
1.42 |
9.54 |
|
2614 |
VANC |
255 |
209 |
36 |
55.30 |
56.1 |
6.94 |
12.37 |
|
2613 |
VANC |
258 |
219 |
31 |
25.60 |
25.5 |
2.71 |
10.63 |
|
2612 |
VANC |
260 |
215 |
35 |
5.70 |
5.5 |
0.65 |
11.76 |
|
2611 |
VANC |
262 |
73 |
31 |
0.00 |
0.7 |
0.58 |
87.69 |
|
2610 |
VANC |
261 |
215 |
36 |
9.90 |
9.5 |
0.81 |
8.60 |
|
2609 |
VANC |
263 |
222 |
29 |
32.80 |
31.6 |
3.69 |
11.67 |
|
2608 |
VANC |
266 |
209 |
26 |
2.50 |
2.4 |
0.60 |
24.63 |
|
2607 |
VANC |
267 |
226 |
30 |
64.30 |
62.2 |
7.20 |
11.57 |
|
2606 |
VANC |
269 |
227 |
33 |
21.60 |
21.2 |
1.81 |
8.57 |
Non-scoring
Distributions
In the distribution year, as shown in the table above in red, 13
analytes were not scored (in addition to all Flucytosine distributions), at
least twice with each analyte. The target value will not appear on the reports
if the analyte has not been scored. The weighed in value will, however, appear
on the report form.
d. Method Performance
Table
5 shows the mean percentage error (+ 95%
Table 5: Mean Percentage Method
Errors
|
|
ANALYTE |
|||||
|
METHOD |
AMIK |
FLYC |
|
TEIC |
TOBR |
VANC |
|
ABBOTT
Axsym |
1.8 |
|
-2.7 (-3.9 to
-1.6) |
|
10.5 (7.4 to
13.7) |
0.0 (-1.0 to
1.0) |
|
ABBOTT iArchitect |
|
|
-4.9 (-8.5 to
-1.2) |
|
|
-11.0 (-14.1
to -7.9) |
|
ABBOTT
Architect |
-8.0 (-13.7
to -2.7) |
|
-2.5 (-4.3 to
-0.7) |
|
-18.6 (-27.7
to -9.6) |
-6.3 (-7.6 to
-5.4=1) |
|
ADVIA |
|
|
3.6 (-3.6 to
10.8) |
|
11.2 (-6.1 to
28.4) |
-17.0 (-22.9
to -11.1) |
|
BECKMAN |
-1.5 (-4.8 to 1.7) |
|
15.7 (13.5 to
17.9) |
|
13.4 (5.1 to
21.6) |
3.5 (0.8 to
6.2) |
|
BIOSTAT |
6.1 (-0.1 to 12.3) |
|
-1.2 (-3.7 to
1.3) |
-0.5 (-1.2 to
0.1) |
11.2 (7.7 to
14.7) |
6.7 (-0.3 to
13.8) |
|
BKT |
|
|
3.7 (-4.4 to
11.7) |
|
|
|
|
CDx90 |
-3.2 (-8.1 to 1.7) |
|
-1.1 (-7.6 to
5.4) |
|
16.8 (-0.1 to
33.8) |
1.1 (-5.6 to
7.7) |
|
CEDIA |
-4.3 |
|
0.0 (-2.9 to
2.9) |
|
35.0 (10.5 to
59.6) |
|
|
COBAS |
-3.2 (-7.1 to 0.7) |
|
-1.7 (-5.3 to
1.9) |
|
-11.8 (-18.8
to -4.8) |
4.3 (1.4 to
7.2) |
|
DADE |
-6.7 (-11.8 to -1.6) |
|
4.0 (-0.4 to
8.3) |
|
|
-21.7 (-41.0
to -2.4) |
|
EMIT |
-7.8 (-16.5
to 0.9) |
|
8.4 (0.0 to
16.8) |
|
-7.3 (-11.0
to -3.6) |
-1.4 (-3.4 to
0.7) |
|
GMNEG |
9.7 (-5.2 to
24.5) |
|
-4.4 (-10.1
to 1.4) |
|
3.8 (-10.4
to 18.0) |
|
|
GMPOS |
|
|
|
|
|
5.2 (-22.3
to 32.8) |
|
HPLC |
|
1.4 (-3.4 to
6.2) |
|
13.8 (6.8 to
20.7) |
|
|
|
|
-9.5 (-14.4
to -4.6) |
|
1.5 (-0.6 to
3.5) |
|
16.7 (8.0 to
25.4) |
-3.8 (-11.5
to 3.8) |
|
ORTHO |
|
|
9.2 (2.5 to
15.8) |
|
|
-0.6 (-12.2
to 11.1) |
|
PETINA |
-2.8 |
|
1.9 (-0.9 to
4.6) |
|
2.6 (-0.9 to
6.1) |
-16.8 (-22.6
to -11.1) |
|
ROCHE |
-0.6 (-2.3 to
1.1) |
|
-4.4 (-6.5 to
-2.2) |
|
-7.4 (-10.7
to -4.0) |
14.3 (11.3 to
17.3) |
|
ROCHEK |
-3.7 (-6.6 to
-0.8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROCHEMP |
-3.9 (-6.0 to
-1.8) |
|
-1.4 (-1.0 to
3.8) |
|
-7.3 (-11.0
to -3.5) |
2.2 (1.0 to
3.3) |
|
SAPPHIRE |
-1.2 (-7.7 to
5.4) |
|
5.0 (-0.6 to
10.5) |
|
-4.8 (-27.1
to 17.4) |
-4.7 (-7.0 to
-2.5) |
|
SIEMENS
(ADVIA CENTAUR) |
-15.1 (-22.5
to -7.7) |
|
6.9 (5.6 to
8.3) |
|
6.6 (0.2 to
13.1) |
-12.9 (-15.7
to -10.2) |
|
SIEMENS
ADVIA 2400 |
|
|
-4.4 (-25.0
to 16.2) |
|
|
-6.5 (-14.0
to 1.0) |
|
SIEMENS
(SIEMENS) |
|
|
23.0 (7.2 to
38.7) |
|
|
3.2 (-8.2 to
14.7) |
|
TDX |
4.9 (2.5 to
7.3) |
|
-3.6 (-4.9 to
-2.2) |
-0.9 (-3.7 to
1.9) |
5.2 (1.8 to
8.7) |
-3.2 (-10.0
to 3.7) |
|
UNK |
-1.4 (-5.1 to
2.2) |
|
-2.7 (-6.4 to
1.0) |
-9.3 (-16.5
to -2.2) |
10.3 (2.4 to
18.2) |
-0.5 (-6.1 to
5.1) |
|
VITROS |
|
|
|
|
-4.1 (-10.3
to 2.2) |
|
|
VITROS
FS |
|
|
3.2 (-3.1 to
9.6) |
|
-8.1 (-15.4
to -0.8) |
-2.8 (-9.5 to
3.8) |
|
YEAST |
|
-3.2 (-6.4 to
0.0) |
|
|
|
|
Repeat Samples
The table below shows the number of repeat samples sent over the
distribution year to participants with an error of more than 30%. The total of 105
(89 standard repeats and 19 threshold repeats) is substantially reduced (37.5%)
compared with the previous year (which was 168 with no threshold repeats). A
possible reason for this improvement is greater education and understanding of
antibiotic assays.
Table 6
|
|
AMIK |
FLUC |
|
TEICO |
TOBRA |
VANC |
|
Apr
2606 |
|
|
6
(2) |
|
|
|
|
May
2607 |
|
|
2
(1) |
|
4
(2) |
5
(3) |
|
Jun
2608 |
|
|
7
(3) |
|
6
(3) |
|
|
Jul
2609 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
4
(1) |
|
Aug
2610 |
1 |
|
4 |
|
2 |
|
|
Sep
2611 |
2
(2) |
|
3
(1) |
|
1
(1) |
|
|
Oct
2612 |
2
(1) |
|
3
(2) |
|
|
7
(4) |
|
Nov
2613 |
|
|
2 |
|
3 |
2
(2) |
|
Dec
2614 |
|
|
4
(2) |
|
1 |
3
(1) |
|
Jan
2615 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
Feb
2616 |
5 |
|
4 |
|
1
(2) |
2
(2) |
|
Mar
2617 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
11 1 |
0 |
32 10 |
2 |
16 5 |
25
3 |
|
TOTALS
2009-10 |
8 |
0 |
50 |
9 |
31 |
68 |
() = significant error as to drop participant to
poor performer list
red text = zero spiked repeats (threshold
repeats – new for 2010 – 2011)
Poorly
Performing Laboratories
The
poorly performing laboratories are analysed biannually (in March and
September). In the tables below laboratory numbers have been
removed and replaced with letters. The same coding system is used for both
months and for laboratories classed as being a poor performer in more than one
analyte. (The codes for this year’s annual report are not related to the codes
for last year’s annual report). Only laboratories in the
Table 7A September 2010
|
LID |
ANAL |
METHOD |
SMETHOD |
LAB_TYPE |
Mean+2SD |
Score |
|
A |
AMIK |
TDX |
PFIA |
PHL |
110.2 |
-1 |
|
B |
AMIK |
BECKMAN |
DXC |
NHS |
57.8 |
0 |
|
C |
AMIK |
ABBOTT. |
|
NHS |
67.8 |
0 |
|
D |
|
TDX |
PFIA |
STATE |
77.1 |
0 |
|
E |
|
DAYTONA |
RANDOX |
NHS |
77.8 |
0 |
|
F |
|
TDX |
PFIA |
NHS |
111.9 |
-1 |
|
G |
|
BECKMAN |
DXC |
NHS |
57.6 |
0 |
|
H |
TOB |
ABBOTT. |
|
PHL |
58.6 |
0 |
|
I |
TOB |
SIEMENS |
CENTAUR |
PHL |
73.9 |
0 |
|
A |
TOB |
BECKMAN |
DXC |
PHL |
52.3 |
0 |
|
J |
TOB |
ABBOTT. |
|
NHS |
112 |
-1 |
|
K |
TOB |
ABBOTT. |
|
NHS |
52.4 |
0 |
|
L |
VANC |
BECKMAN |
DXC |
NHS |
121 |
-1 |
Table 7B March 2011
|
LID |
ANAL |
METHOD |
SMETHOD |
LAB_TYPE |
Mean+2SD |
Score |
|
M |
AMIK |
ABBOTT. |
|
NHS |
50.7 |
0 |
|
N |
AMIK |
ROCHE |
PFIA |
NHS |
104.3 |
-1 |
|
O |
AMIK |
BECKMAN |
DXC |
|
67.5 |
0 |
|
P |
|
ABBOTT. |
|
PHL |
56.3 |
0 |
|
Q |
|
SIEMENS. |
EMIT |
NHS |
74.5 |
0 |
|
R |
|
ABBOTT. |
|
NHS |
124.3 |
-1 |
|
S |
|
SIEMENS |
CENTAUR |
NHS |
60.2 |
0 |
|
T |
|
|
|
NHS |
123.0 |
-1 |
|
G |
|
BECKMAN |
DXC |
NHS |
56.8 |
0 |
|
U |
|
ROCHE |
KIMS |
PRIV |
121.0 |
-1 |
|
V |
|
SIEMENS |
ADVIA |
|
55.0 |
0 |
|
W |
TOB |
ROCHEMP |
|
PHL |
107.2 |
-1 |
|
X |
TOB |
SIEMENS |
ADVIA |
NHS |
50.1 |
0 |
|
Y |
VANC |
SIEMENS |
CENTAUR |
NHPH |
108.9 |
-1 |
|
Z |
VANC |
ROCHEMP |
COBAS |
NHS |
50.4 |
0 |
|
AA |
VANC |
ROCHEMP |
ON |
NHS |
59.0 |
0 |
Non-Returning
Laboratories
Laboratories
classed as poor performers on their failure to return results are also analysed
biannually. If laboratories have also been classed as poor performers on MEAN+2SD the same letter is used in the
tables below. The numbers in the tables are the number of non-returns during
the 6 month period up to March 2011.
Table 8A September 2010
|
|
ANALYTE |
|||||
|
LID |
AMIK |
FLU |
|
TEIC |
TOB |
VANC |
|
Q |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
AB |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
AC |
|
|
6 |
|
|
6 |
Table 8B March 2011
|
|
ANALYTE |
|||||
|
LID |
AMIK |
FLU |
|
TEIC |
TOB |
VANC |
|
AD |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AE |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
End of
Annual Report 2010 - 2011