Utility of Reference Change Values for Delta Check Limits

Objectives To assess the utility of reference change values (RCVs) as delta check limits. Methods A total of 1,650,518 paired results for 23 general chemistry test results from June 1, 2014, to October 31, 2016, were analyzed. The RCVs for each analyte were calculated from the analytical imprecision and within-subject biological variation. The percent differences between two consecutive results in one patient were categorized into one of four groups: outpatients, inpatients, emergency care, and general health care. For each, 2.5th and 97.5th percentile values were computed and compared with their RCVs. The distributions were assessed for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Results Most of the estimated limits were larger than the corresponding RCVs and, furthermore, with notable differences across the groups. Patients in the emergency care group usually demonstrated larger delta percent values than those in the other groups. None of the distributions of the percent differences passed tests of normality when subjected to Kolmogorov-Smirnov analysis. Conclusions Comparison of estimated RCVs and real-world patient data revealed the pitfalls of applying RCVs in clinical laboratories. Laboratory managers should be aware of the limitations of RCVs and exercise caution when using them.

[1]  Ayaho Miyamoto,et al.  A novel weighted cumulative delta-check method for highly sensitive detection of specimen mix-up in the clinical laboratory , 2013, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[2]  Carmen Ricós,et al.  Collective opinion paper on findings of the 2010 convocation of experts on laboratory quality , 2011, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[3]  Frederick G. Strathmann,et al.  Simulations of delta check rule performance to detect specimen mislabeling using historical laboratory data. , 2011, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[4]  F. Ieva,et al.  A new robust statistical model for interpretation of differences in serial test results from an individual , 2015, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[5]  Anna Carobene,et al.  Reliability of biological variation data available in an online database: need for improvement , 2015, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[6]  Ira Miller,et al.  Development and Evaluation of a Logical Delta Check for Identifying Erroneous Blood Count Results in a Tertiary Care Hospital. , 2015, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[7]  C. Fraser Data on biological variation: essential prerequisites for introducing new procedures? , 1994, Clinical chemistry.

[8]  Hae Kyung Lee,et al.  Usefulness of biological variation in the establishment of delta check limits. , 2016, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[9]  C G Fraser,et al.  Desirable performance standards for clinical chemistry tests. , 1983, Advances in clinical chemistry.

[10]  C G Fraser,et al.  Generation and application of data on biological variation in clinical chemistry. , 1989, Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences.

[11]  T Yasaka,et al.  On the calculation of a "reference change" for comparing two consecutive measurements. , 1983, Clinical chemistry.

[12]  Flemming Lund,et al.  Analytical performance specifications for changes in assay bias (Δbias) for data with logarithmic distributions as assessed by effects on reference change values , 2016, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[13]  Callum G Fraser,et al.  Reference change values , 2012, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.