No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives Monitoring quality indicators (QIs) is an important part of laboratory quality assurance (QA). Here, the Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists (CSCC) Point of Care Testing (POCT) and QI Special Interest Groups describe a process for establishing and monitoring QIs for POCT glucose testing. Methods Key, error prone steps in the POCT glucose testing process were collaboratively mapped out, followed by risk assessment for each step. Steps with the highest risk and ability to detect a non-conformance were chosen for follow-up. These were positive patient identification (PPID) and repeat of critically high glucose measurements. Participating sites were asked to submit aggregate data for these indicators from their site(s) for a one-month period. The PPID QI was also included as part of a national QI monitoring program for which fifty-seven sites submitted data. Results The percentage of POCT glucose tests performed without valid PPID ranged from 0–87%. Sites without Admission-Discharge-Transfer (ADT) connectivity to POCT meters were among those with the highest percentage of POCT glucose tests performed without valid PPID. The percentage repeated critically high glucose measurements ranged from 0–50%, indicating low compliance with this recommendation. A high rate of discordance was also noted when critically high POCT glucose measurements were repeated, demonstrating the importance of repeat testing prior to insulin administration. Conclusions Here, a process for establishing these QIs is described, with preliminary data for two QIs chosen from this process. The findings demonstrate the importance of QIs for identification and comparative performance monitoring of non-conformances to improve POCT quality.

Background The AACC Academy revised the reproductive testing section of the Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines: Evidence-Based Practice for Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) published in 2007. Methods A panel of Academy members with expertise in POCT and laboratory medicine was formed to develop guidance for the use of POCT in reproductive health, specifically ovulation, pregnancy, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), and high-risk deliveries. The committee was supplemented with clinicians having Emergency Medicine and Obstetrics/Gynecology training. Results Key recommendations include the following. First, urine luteinizing hormone (LH) tests are accurate and reliable predictors of ovulation. Studies have shown that the use of ovulation predicting kits may improve the likelihood of conception among healthy fertile women seeking pregnancy. Urinary LH point-of-care testing demonstrates a comparable performance among other ovulation monitoring methods for timing intrauterine insemination and confirming sufficient ovulation induction before oocyte retrieval during in vitro fertilization. Second, pregnancy POCT should be considered in clinical situations where rapid diagnosis of pregnancy is needed for treatment decisions, and laboratory analysis cannot meet the required turnaround time. Third, PROM testing using commercial kits alone is not recommended without clinical signs of rupture of membranes, such as leakage of amniotic fluid from the cervical opening. Finally, fetal scalp lactate is used more than fetal scalp pH for fetal acidosis due to higher success rate and low volume of sample required. Conclusions This revision of the AACC Academy POCT guidelines provides recommendations for best practice use of POCT in fertility and reproduction.