iSTAT AQ-A CAP survey with BUN failure (iSTAT 6+)
2 followers
0 Likes
Has anyone received CAP AQ-A survey with BUN (on iSTAT 6+ cartridge) failure?
28 Replies
Displaying items 16-28 of 28 in total
Reply
Subgroup Membership is required to post Replies
Join POCT Listserv now
Suggested Posts
Topic | Replies | Likes | Views | Participants | Last Reply |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
iSTAT in NICU -chem 8, CG4 | 5 | 0 | 192 | ||
Rotem Sigma Validation Help | 1 | 0 | 94 | ||
Hemochron Sig Elite use outside of manufacturer temperature range | 2 | 0 | 152 |
AQI-C 2018 CHEM8+.docx
Thanks Diana!
Penny Gooch
Penny,
In 2017, we experienced two failures on the AQI-B Survey for Glucose on the iSTAT using the 6+. I reviewed all of my QC and Cal VER results that were run on
the analyzer prior to the survey. Then I repeated the QC and Cal VER. They were still almost on the manufacturer’s mean. I called Abbott and spoke to a technical specialist to see if I could be missing something. Our external and internal electronic simulators
passed with no problem.
I had extra PT survey sample. When repeated, the results were identical to what we reported. Then I called the CAP and I was lucky to speak with a representative
who gave me some insight on how the CAP survey material for iSTAT is manufactured. It is tested and the “expected” results (which they never tell us) are determined using the Chem8+ cartridge. (hmm) In addition, she was able to tell me that on the 2017
AQI-C survey of the over 1,200 participants, 60+ were outside of the acceptable range. Of the 60+ nearly all but a couple were out of limit ‘high’ just like us. The others appeared to be transcription errors. (These were glucose values in the range of 50-60
mg/dL. The peer mean was around 53 and we reported 62.)
I ran theextra PT samples that I had on the 6+, Chem8+ and G cartridges. I found that the 6+ and the G were running between 60-62 and the Chem 8+ was running
between 51-53. I ran them on multiple analyzers using different cartridge lot numbers and I got exactly the same results. There was more than an 11.5% difference between the Chem 8+ results and the 6+ and G results. We reported this to CAP and they over
turned the unacceptable result in 2017 based on the data that I sent them.
When this happened again with the 2018 AQI-C for glucose (again in the 50-60 mg/dL range) and the BUN at a higher range (about 90). I did the exact same thing.
I repeated the survey material on multiple cartridge lot numbers and multiple analyzers and put all the data into a spread sheet. We also asked Duke University Hospital and others in our health system who use the Chem 8+ to share their survey results. As
predicted their results on both the Glucose and BUN were lower than those we reported on the 6+. All cartridges report the same value on a whole blood sample. Hence the matrix effect.
Abbott recognizes that the aqueous liquid QC and Cal Ver perform differently for the same analyte on different cartridges and even different lot numbers of the
same cartridge. That is why they have the different values on the Value Assignment sheets.
I would recommend that if you have or can get extra PT sample, that you order some Chem 8+ cartridges and run them along with the 6+ and a fresh whole blood
sample to see the differences in the glucose and/or BUN. Run them on multiple analyzers if possible at the same time to prevent the PT sample from getting old.
CAP believes the unacceptable results are due were due to human error, the analyzers not functioning properly, or statistical variation. However, the results
are reproducible. If this were caused by any of the previous, I would not be able to reproduce this again and again.
Please let me know if this helps.
We have called Abbott and they are escalating the issue to urgent for investigation. If you don't mind calling the issue to Abbott too so there will be a lot of us reporting the issue, hopefully we will get a response immediately.
Also we called CAP and they said, they don't separate what type of cartridges the surveys are ran and that Abbott dictates the peer group.
They said that there were 23 labs that had failed the BUN and we were thinking, all those labs are probably using the 6+ cartridge.
We failed BUN on AQI-A 02 ran on lot# K18257: AQI-C 11 ran on lot# K18197. Both are on high results.
Alana,
FYI…Abbott does not dictate CAP peer group. CAP lumps all iSTAT results into the same category regardless of the cartridge used.
API (American Proficiency Institute) asks submitters to report the cartridge type that each analyte is reported from. The peer mean, SD, etc., are based only
on results from the same cartridge type. You are truly compared to your peer group. We asked CAP to consider this. They have refused to even mention it to the CAP Chemistry Review group.
Diana
Here in beautiful Colorado, we are the only peer group in the country running tests above 6,000 ft in the entire peer group. We got massively screwed when CAP took away the option to enter your barometric pressure. I have a constant low bias on the PO2's that fail on occasion (I had a few sites that failed on AQI-A 2019), but when I do Abbott's recommended correction for altitude my results are right on the mean. I told CAP this would happen, and they said they would keep an eye on it. I was really bummed when Abbott released a new Technical Bulletin that now states you cannot correct the PO2 for CAP - previously the operator's manual still said that it was recommended when running QC, Cal Ver and PT, but not anymore - so we stopped correcting our results before submitting, and now we fail or teeter on the edge of failure every time. I have to write up a PT investigation on every survey about that, lol!
Diana,
That’s what the rep from CAP told us. That Abbott dictates the peer group. And you’re right that CAP lumps all the results from different cartridges. We had a call back from Abbott and the rep said that they found with their studies that 6+ runs a little higher and they had advised CAP to have a separate 6+ peer group but has not done that yet.
Abbott will do their investigation and said they will send a response. Hopefully soon.
Alana
Would CMS ( CLIA) order you to Cease Testing of ABG ( failing 2 in a row)
if you keep failing because of not being able to correct with Barometric pressure?
That would be a disaster.
I still think there is something wrong with the samples we received.
So, if you fail 2 out of 3 PT surveys, how do you answer this CAP checklist question? That is why we went to AQQ survey for POCT, since our testing is under the lab CLIA number, we did not want to put the lab in jepardy. I called CAP and they said that only the main lab needs to report 1 set of results to CLIA, plus you can only purchase 1 survey per CLIA number. But we still run Quality Checks for POCT.
COM.01950
Cease Patient Testing for Repeat PT Failures
Phase II
If the laboratory was instructed by the CAP to cease patient testing for an analyte or subspecialty due to repeat unsuccessful proficiency testing, laboratory records demonstrate that no patient results were released until after the laboratory received approval from the CAP to resume patient testing.
NOTE: In order to resume patient testing, the laboratory must meet the conditions as outlined in the cease patient testing notification.
Evidence of Compliance:
I believe you would have to fail at least 3 of 5 challenges for the same analyte, twice in a row, in order to be in jeaopardy.
I have never had that happen. Typically we just barely fail on one sample out of five, maybe two, then pass again on the next survey. Last year we had zero failures. This year so far I've only had one failure on one of the 5 samples, at two different locations, but both were for PO2, and would have passed had we done the altitude correction.
At our main campus location I only report out pH, pO2, and pCO2 on the AQI. All other analyses I consider the main lab to be the primary analyzer. When we do over 90% of our blood gases POC I have a hard time saying the lab is primary for those.
Sent via Groupsite Mobile.
Advertising
Navigate to...
Home
Digital Edition
Product Guides
Jobs
Advertising
– Current Advertisers
– 2016 Ad Rates
This Month’s Issue
Read, save, and print articles from the current issue
Articles
Chronological index
2013–2016
Product Guides
Compare all instruments
and software systems
Departments
Chronological index
2013–2015
Marketplace
New pathology lab products and industry news
Home » 2015 Issues, Articles, September 2015
PT failures: steps to preventing a cease testing
John D. Olson, MD, PhD
Brad S. Karon, MD, PhD
September 2015—When the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 were implemented in the early 1990s, a number of significant changes to proficiency testing, or PT, were required. For the 83 tests or analytes (and microbiology subspecialties) defined as CLIA regulated, the law imposed requirements on both PT providers and laboratories. Regulations require participation in at least three PT events per year (each with five specimens) for each analyte, subspecialty, or specialty (mycobacteriology requires two events per year). CLIA regulates how PT providers score PT challenges for these analytes, and mandates that all laboratories that fail to achieve satisfactory scores be reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and initiate corrective action for issues related to poor PT performance.
As a result of a recent CMS clarification and communication on the requirements that have to be met to resume testing after a cease-testing period, the CAP is ensuring enforcement of an additional consequence: The laboratory must cease testing for a full six months after a cease testing for a regulated analyte.
We will discuss here this consequence and how the CAP oversees PT performance for regulated analytes, but first it will be useful to define terms, as used by the CMS:
Example: 2015/1 80% | 2015/2 100% | 2015/3 60%
Example: 2015/1 20% | 2015/2 100% | 2015/3 60%
Example 1 (three out of four failures): 2015/1 20% | 2015/2 60% |
2015/3 100% | 2016/1 20% | 2016/2 100% | 2016/3 100%
Example 2 (two sets of two out of three): 2015/1 20% | 2015/2 60% |
2015/3 100% | 2016/1 100% | 2016/2 20% | 2016/3 0%
The CAP monitors PT performance continually. The timeframe does not stop nor does it reset annually. Thus, if a laboratory performed unsuccessfully on PT in the second or third events of 2014, or the first event of 2015, it would currently be at risk for repeat unsuccessful PT performance.
As mandated by CLIA, the CAP requires laboratories to cease patient/client testing in response to any repeat unsuccessful PT performance for a regulated analyte, specialty, or subspecialty. The PT performance of CAP-accredited laboratories is truly outstanding. In 2014, among more than 7,000 accredited laboratories (more than 1 million analyte challenges), only 23 laboratories were sent cease-testing directives for regulated analytes and no laboratory received more than one cease-testing directive. Among the analytes involved in the 2014 cease-testing directives, 16 were chemistry, four were hematology/coagulation, two were bacteriology, and one was transfusion medicine. Of note, seven cease-testing directives were for blood gas measurement, specifically pO2. This is likely related to the importance of PT specimen handling. The CAP provides information for laboratories on troubleshooting PT failures, in the Proficiency Testing Toolbox that can be found at http://j.mp/pt_troubleshooting.
The director of a laboratory that receives a cease-testing directive is required to sign an affidavit ensuring that patient/client testing has ceased for that analyte. To be reinstated, the laboratory must:
In the past, when a laboratory completed steps for reinstatement and submitted acceptable documentation to the CAP, the CAP would often find that it had all the information necessary to decide whether a laboratory was in compliance and could resume testing. Now, as a result of the recent CMS clarification, the CAP is enforcing the additional consequence that a laboratory cease testing for six months before being allowed to resume patient/client testing.
For a number of regulated analytes (blood gas, electrolytes, compatibility testing, hematology testing), the option of sending out this testing during the six-month cease-testing mandate will pose a challenge to providing good patient care. The CAP will work with laboratories that experience a cease-testing directive for a critical analyte to minimize the impact on patient care. Of course, the best way to minimize the impact on care is to prevent PT failures and address all instances of unacceptable PT results so they do not recur.
Because of the serious nature of a cease-testing directive and its effect on laboratories and patients, the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program has put together a tip sheet on the escalation process for PT failures (http://j.mp/pt_tips). The tip sheet is intended to help laboratories better understand the process and consequences of a repeat unsuccessful PT performance. If your laboratory does reach the point of an unsuccessful PT performance, you will need to exercise increased vigilance over several PT events to ensure that you don’t have a repeat unsuccessful PT performance. As in the past, an unsatisfactory PT performance must be investigated and, for inspection purposes, documentation of corrective action must be maintained by the laboratory even though a formal response to the CAP is not required. An unsuccessful PT performance will continue to require the laboratory to complete and return to the CAP a proficiency testing compliance notice (PTCN) response form, documenting the corrective action taken to prevent further PT failures. This process will not change and serves to alert the laboratory that it is at risk if an unsuccessful PT performance were to occur again. In all cases of unsatisfactory PT performance, the laboratory must assess the possible impact on patient testing. The PT failure may be an indicator of problems with patient testing, requiring a look-back at patient results to determine if the patient testing has been valid.
The CAP requires enrollment in formal proficiency testing for about 300 nonregulated analytes. It will continue to monitor PT performance for these nonregulated analytes as it has in the past. The process for monitoring nonregulated analytes is different, and repeat unsuccessful PT performance does not require testing to be ceased for a full six months. Information about the monitoring and escalation process for nonregulated analytes can be found online in the Proficiency Testing Toolbox. The information in this CAP TODAY article relates to the monitoring of regulated analytes only. As a reminder for nonregulated analytes, the laboratory must demonstrate its proficiency using an alternative assessment method at least two times per year.
In conclusion, laboratories and laboratory directors need to be aware of the consequences of unsatisfactory, unsuccessful, and repeat unsuccessful PT performance. If an unsuccessful PT performance should occur, every effort should be made to understand and correct the testing process to prevent a repeat unsuccessful PT performance. The CAP will continue to work closely with laboratories to improve performance and avoid the consequences of PT failure.
A “Focus on Compliance” webinar on this topic was presented July 15 and can be viewed at https://vimeo.com/134230415.
Dr. Olson is a member and Dr. Karon is the chair of the CAP Continuous Compliance Committee. Dr. Olson is a professor emeritus, Department of Pathology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, and director of clinical laboratories, South Texas Reference Laboratories. Dr. Karon is associate professor of laboratory medicine and pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
Tweet
Tags: Proficiency testing (see also CAP programs/products/services) --
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Most Popular
Alana,
Congratulations! Alana,
Congratulations! You got farther with CAP than we did. Please let me know if you get a response from the CAP.
Thanks!
Diana
For the CAP survey that has 5 challenges, if you get two samples of the same analyte wrong you score a 75%. You must score at least an 80% on the analyte to
pass. If that happens on two surveys within, I think 18 months, CMS will ask you to cease testing until you rectify the problem. The issue is that there is really no problem to rectify. How the CAP handles the iSTAT survey is the problem. That is why
after we scored 75% on the AQI-C 2018 for BUN, and we were sure that it was a matrix effect, we switched to API survey material and cancelled the CAP AQI survey.
A 3/5 score on a survey would be 60%. As I understand it, the cease testing directive is only issued if the PT is failing in 3 out of 6 surveys; so if you failed back to back surveys you would need to pass the following 4 surveys to be out of jeopardy.