Objectives Internal quality control (IQC) plays an important role in quality assurance in laboratory medicine. However, there is no universal consensus or guideline on when and how IQC should be analyzed on point-of-care testing (POCT) devices. The aim of this study was to develop a scoring system to determine how often IQC should be analyzed in primary healthcare on the various POCT devices. Methods Based on a systematic literature review and a thorough process involving the whole Noklus, a nationwide POC organization, a scoring system for when to analyze IQC was developed. Four factors were considered to significantly impact IQC frequency: The importance of the analyte in diagnosing and monitoring patients, type of POCT device, user-friendliness, and number of patient samples. For each POCT device, the first three factors were given a score, and the sum of the scores determined the general recommended IQC frequency. The number of patient samples determined whether and how to adjust these frequencies in each individual general practice. Results The scoring system was applied to 17 analytes and 134 different POCT devices (153 analyte-device combinations). Most of the devices analyzing high-risk analytes (71 out of 74) obtained daily or weekly IQC frequency. For example, all blood-cell counters and all glucose meters should undergo IQC daily and weekly, respectively. Conclusions This study presents a consensus-based scoring system for differentiated and device-specific recommendations for IQC frequency on POCT devices in primary healthcare. The scoring system can easily be adopted to other local environments and is easy to use.

Objectives Differences between laboratory results attributable to the use of different reagent lots can potentially affect the diagnosis and monitoring of patients. To minimize patient risks, all laboratories should verify that new reagent lots meet agreed analytical performance specifications (APS). We propose a simplified, pragmatic approach for laboratories that involves compilating results into a national surveillance program, and present the first results obtained when applying this approach to troponins, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and D-dimer. Methods In the surveillance program we have (i) determined APS for selected analytes, (ii) implemented a simplified procedure for lot evaluation with patient samples used in laboratories across Norway and (iii) performed central processing of the results from the participating laboratories. Results Over a one-year period, 27 Norwegian laboratories returned results from 28 lot changes for troponin I, 11 for troponin T, and 29 for HbA1c, PSA and D-dimer. The mean difference between two reagent lots was 4.5% for troponin I (for a concentration interval of 20–32 ng/L), 5.1% for troponin T (10.7–17.5 ng/L), 2.2% for HbA1c (40–50 mmol/mol), 3.7% for PSA (3–5 μg/L) and 5.5% for D-dimer (0.4–1.0 mg/L FEU). Conclusions A novel procedure for reagent lot evaluation is proposed in which information about multiple lot changes from different medical laboratories can be accumulated nationally. Sharing this information allows simplification of lot evaluations in individual laboratories and provides real-world data about lot-to-lot variations.

Objectives Accurate prothrombin time international normalized ratio (INR) results are essential for safe anticoagulation treatment. Patients are treated both in primary and secondary healthcare, therefore equivalence of INR results from point-of-care (POC) and hospital measurement procedures (MPs) are important. It is not possible to evaluate this equivalence in traditional external quality assessment (EQA). The aim of this paper is to describe a special quality assurance system consisting of three different EQA schemes to monitor the harmonization of INR results in Norway. Methods The EQA scheme for hospital laboratories uses commutable control materials and evaluates participant performance and the equivalence of hospital MPs. The EQA scheme for primary healthcare laboratories uses non-commutable control materials and evaluates participant performance. A third EQA scheme for selected primary healthcare laboratories uses native patient split samples and evaluates the equivalence between POC and hospital MPs. Results The relationship between the three EQA schemes is presented. The split sample EQA scheme provides a link between the hospital scheme and the scheme for primary healthcare. Results from 2017 to 2022 are presented for all three schemes. When aberrant EQA results occur Noklus takes actions to be able to have a sustainable equivalence between INR results. Conclusions All three EQA schemes are important for monitoring the harmonization of INR results in Norway. This quality assurance system, including help and guidance of the participants, will reduce the risk of harm to patients due to non-equivalence of results from different MPs.