Validation Protocol: First Step of a Lean-Total Quality Management Principle in a New Laboratory Set-up in a Tertiary Care Hospital in India

Method validation is pursued as the first step in establishing Lean-Total Quality Management in a new clinical laboratory, in order to eliminate error in test results. Validation of all the new tests were done (with particular reference to alkaline phosphatase) by verifying reference intervals, analytical accuracy and precision, inter-assay and intra-assay variations, analytical sensitivity, limit of detection, linearity and reportable range, i.e. (i) Analytical measurement range (AMR) and (ii) Clinically reportable range (CRR). Our obtained reference range was within that of the manufacturer’s and showed high degree of analytical accuracy between two laboratories (r2 = 0.99). Precision was comparable with the manufacturer’s claim with inter-assay variation CV 1.04% and intra-assay variation CV 1.54%. Lowest limit of detection was 1.0324 ± 0.007 with CV 0.34%. AMR was also verified with CV 1.26 and 0.69%, for level 1 and level 2 control sera, respectively. The assay was linear with different dilutions. Lean concept was also verified with high recovery percentage. Validation ensures that accurate and precise results are reported in a clinically relevant turn around time.

[1]  Martha Sunyog,et al.  Lean Management and Six-Sigma yield big gains in hospital's immediate response laboratory. Quality improvement techniques save more than $400,000. , 2004, Clinical leadership & management review : the journal of CLMA.

[2]  James C. Boyd,et al.  Selection and Analytical Evaluations of Methods-With Statistical Techniques , 2006 .

[3]  Michael L. George,et al.  Lean Six Sigma for Service : How to Use Lean Speed and Six Sigma Quality to Improve Services and Transactions , 2003 .

[4]  R Dybkaer,et al.  Vocabulary for use in measurement procedures and description of reference materials in laboratory medicine. , 1997, European journal of clinical chemistry and clinical biochemistry : journal of the Forum of European Clinical Chemistry Societies.

[5]  Jay Arthur,et al.  Lean Six Sigma for Hospitals: Simple Steps to Fast, Affordable, and Flawless Healthcare , 2011 .

[6]  Hermann Wätzig,et al.  Efficient and economic HPLC performance qualification. , 2010, Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis.

[7]  D. Powers,et al.  CLSI: EP7-A2. Interference testing in clinical chemistry , 2005 .

[8]  Edward R. Ashwood,et al.  Tietz Textbook of Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics , 2005 .

[9]  L. A. Currie,et al.  Nomenclature in evaluation of analytical methods including detection and quantification capabilities (IUPAC Recommendations 1995) , 1995 .

[10]  C. Kılınç Laboratory quality management systems: missions, goals and activities in quality assurance. , 2009, Clinical biochemistry.

[11]  Michael L. Bishop,et al.  Clinical Chemistry: Principles, Procedures, Correlations , 1991 .

[12]  Rn Carey,et al.  CLSI/NCCLS: EP15-A2. User verification of performance for precision and trueness , 2006 .

[13]  Evelina Lamma,et al.  Validation of biochemical laboratory results using the DNSev expert system , 2003, Expert Syst. Appl..

[14]  J Cummings,et al.  Biomarker method validation in anticancer drug development , 2008, British journal of pharmacology.

[15]  D. M.,et al.  Protocols for Determination of Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantitation; Approved Guidelines , 2004 .