No abstract

No abstract

SummaryThis guideline provides a framework for the arrangement of point-of-care testing (POCT) services, previously known as near patient testing (patient self-testing not covered). POCT is defined as any analytical test performed outside the laboratory. Primary users are often non-laboratory healthcare workers. The guidance applies to units within hospitals as well as general practioner surgeries, community clinics and pharmacies. The head of the haematology laboratory or a point of care coordinator must take responsibility for all aspects of the POCT service, including quality and training. Depending on the size and nature of the POCT practice, a local POCT manager may also be required. Equipment selected should have received a successful independent performance evaluation. If an independent evaluation has not been performed the purchaser should assess the device according to the protocol in this document. POCT devices should generate results that are comparable to those of the local laboratory. An accredited external quality assessment programme and internal quality control system must be established. Manufacturers promoting POCT devices designed for non-laboratory sites, e.g. pharmacies, should undertake training and annual competency assessment, perhaps using a web-based system. A diagram to illustrate the stages for the implementation of a POCT service is illustrated.Keywords: point-of-care testing, point-of-care committee, accreditation, external quality assurance, instrument evaluation.The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a framework for the provision of appropriate local arrangements for pointof-care testing (POCT) and to protect patients and staff. The guideline provides information and suggestions for good laboratory practice and for producing reliable results, regardless of where the test is performed. POCT may be defined as any analytical test performed for a patient by a healthcare worker outside the laboratory setting. This document is an update to the British Committee for Standards in Haematology (BCSH) guideline for Near Patient Testing: haematology (England et al, 1995) and embodies the philosophy agreed by the Joint Working Group (JWG) (1999) on Quality Assurance, the national standards required for clinical pathology accreditation (Clinical Pathology Accreditation (CPA) (UK) Ltd, 2007, revised Burnett et al, 2002 and the International Standards Organisation (ISO) POCT requirements for quality and competence (International Standard organisation, ISO, 2004a). There have been several evaluations carried out on the views of general practioners (GPs) to POCT and quality control procedures (England et al, 1995;Murray & Fitzmaurice, 1998). GPs do not always find POCT a useful addition to their resources and the challenges presented by community environments may mean that it is more difficult to adequately address all quality control issues (Department of Health, 1987;Hilton et al, 1994). Other important factors for consideration are the efficacy of the procedures being undertaken, medicol...

Summary We report the results of a pilot study assessing the use of digital ‘virtual slides’ in haematological quality assessment. Conducted together with the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme for General Haematology, the study involved 166 separate participants, using the format of a typical assessment exercise. The results revealed substantial concordance of observations made using digital slides with those reported in previous glass slide surveys that used identical cases. Participant feedback strongly supported the use of electronic slides in teaching and assessment roles. Our results suggest roles for this new electronic resource in external quality assessment (EQA), education and continuing professional development.

A knowledge of the limitations of automated platelet counting is essential for the effective care of thrombocytopenic patients and management of platelet stocks for transfusion. For this study, 29 external quality assessment specimen pools with platelet counts between 5 and 64 × 10(9)/L were distributed to more than 1,100 users of 23 different hematology analyzer models. The same specimen pools were analyzed by the international reference method (IRM) for platelet counting at 3 reference centers. The IRM values were on average lower than the all-methods median values returned by the automated analyzers. The majority (~67%) of the automated analyzer results overestimated the platelet count compared with the IRM, with significant differences in 16.5% of cases. Performance differed between analyzer models. The observed differences may depend in part on the nature of the survey material and analyzer technology, but the findings have implications for the interpretation of platelet counts at levels of clinical decision making.