New CLIA 4% PT acceptable criteria for hemoglobin
26 followers
0 Likes
We use API for proficiency testing on our Avox 1000E in our cath labs.
We have hemoglobin unacceptable performance for the first two PT events this year. There were none last year.
Our QC and linearities pass. Pathlength is correct. Whole blood correlation to the core lab, Sysmex, is within acceptable limits.
I called API and they said they are seeing an increase in PT failures for hemoglobin with this new 4% criteria.
I am concerned that we will have failures on our 3rd event.
Is anyone else experiencing this?
Deborah Martuch
deborah.martuch@hf.org
We have hemoglobin unacceptable performance for the first two PT events this year. There were none last year.
Our QC and linearities pass. Pathlength is correct. Whole blood correlation to the core lab, Sysmex, is within acceptable limits.
I called API and they said they are seeing an increase in PT failures for hemoglobin with this new 4% criteria.
I am concerned that we will have failures on our 3rd event.
Is anyone else experiencing this?
Deborah Martuch
deborah.martuch@hf.org
8 Replies
Reply
Subgroup Membership is required to post Replies
Join POCT Listserv now
Suggested Posts
| Topic | Replies | Likes | Views | Participants | Last Reply |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How many full-time employees does your POCT department staff? | 5 | 0 | 240 | ||
| Hemachron 100 vs. iSTAT and HMS | 0 | 0 | 245 | ||
| AMR verification of hemoglobin derivatives | 4 | 0 | 302 |
I also reached out to Werfen and opened a case.
JoAnn
Thank you,
Niki
Your proficiency tests are for the analyte not the analyzer. So if your running PT on your ABL90 then anything else in your lab that runs that same analyte you do a method comparison between the two testing methods. This will prove to inspectors that the analyte is comparable to the one that you ran PT on.