A review of the current quality standards framework supporting forensic science: Risks and opportunities

Abstract

The publication and implementation of the latest editions of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001:2015 and ISO/International Electrochemical Commission (IEC) 17025:2017 together with the recent publication of the first book on quality management in forensic science provide an opportunity for this review. It details the changes to the structure, content and scope of the latest editions and assesses the impact on forensic science. Key terms are defined and explained. The review examines the effectiveness of the quality standards framework (QSF) supporting forensic science in the regions of Australia and New Zealand, Europe and North America. The concept of a hierarchy is introduced as a means of classifying standards to better navigate the crowded landscape. The main body of the review identifies risks to the QSF and opportunities for improvement. This article is categorized under: Forensic Science in Action/Crime Scene Investigation > Education and Formation Forensic Chemistry and Trace Evidence > Presentation and Evaluation of Forensic Science Output Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Expert Evidence and Narrative Forensic Biology > Interpretation of Biological Evidence

Interpol review of forensic management, 2019–2022

“…The alliance of these forensic laboratory networks establish standards for minimum required documents (MRDs) across forensic areas of investigation [ 4 , 46 ]. Uniformity in global practice includes the perception of quality as signaled through accreditation standards, which enhances the abilities of management to deliver forensic science analysis [ 52 , 53 ].…”

“…Quality assurance can be supported in several other ways, many but not all of which are tied to accreditation standards. The following is a non-exhaustive list of quality assurance methods, the details of which can be found either in other sections of this review or in the supporting texts cited: lean six sigma or total quality management approach to improve turnaround time and efficiency [ 11 , 116 , 117 ]; Daku,2019 [ 118 ]; the use of a LIMS or case management system [ 10 , 111 , 119 ]; blind proficiency testing [ 20 , 27 , 30 , 53 , 54 , 108 , 120 ]; improved education or certification of forensic scientists and technicians [ 15 , 20 , [29] , [30] , [31] , 36 , 40 , 52 , 115 , 121 ]; other stakeholders [ 10 , 40 , 58 ]; improvements in organizational culture and stress reduction [ 19 , 23 , 116 , 122 ]; laboratory independence [ 17 , 18 , 52 , 120 ]; effective use of regulation [ 15 , 16 , 31 , 109 ]; improvements in evidence chain of custody and storage [ 10 , 119 , 123 , 124 ]; improvements in crime scene management and testing standards [ 10 , 15 , 125 , 126 ]; and reduction of biases and conflicts of interest [ [15] , [16] , [17] , 20 , 21 , 52 , 53 , …”

Shining a Light on Forensic Black-Box Studies

“…The exclusion of foreign examiners thus should not be done lightly. Additionally, accreditation of forensic laboratory requires proficiency testing of examiners and for the lab to assess and certify that the examiners are competent (Doyle, 2020). The expectation would be that this process reduces errors.…”

Toward a common language for quality issues in forensic science

“…Recent changes to international standards promote the use of risk-based thinking (Doyle, 2020), forcing accredited forensic agencies to move away from the "compliance" methodologies of the past and develop quality systems that permit appropriate and proportional response to risk, thereby becoming agile enough to accommodate future directions in research and development and support forensic intelligence models.…”