Download PDF
Thromb Haemost 2009; 102(03): 593-600
DOI: 10.1160/TH09-02-0082
Blood Coagulation, Fibrinolysis and Cellular Haemostasis
Schattauer GmbH

Internal quality control of prothrombin time in primary care: comparing the use of patient split samples with lyophilised control materials

Anne Stavelin
1   NOKLUS, Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories, Haraldsplass Diaconal Hospital, Bergen, Norway
,
Per Hyltoft Petersen
2   NOKLUS, Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories, Section for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
,
Una Sølvik
2   NOKLUS, Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories, Section for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
,
Sverre Sandberg
2   NOKLUS, Norwegian Quality Improvement of Primary Care Laboratories, Section for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
3   Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received. 05 February 2009

Accepted after minor revision: 05 May 2009

Publication Date:
22 November 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Many primary care laboratories use point-of-care (POC) instruments to monitor patients on anticoagulant treatment. The internal analytical quality control of these instruments is often assessed by analysing lyophilised control materials and/or by sending patient samples to a local hospital laboratory for comparison (split sample).The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of these two models of prothrombin time quality control. The models were evaluated by power functions created by computer simulations based on empirical data from 18 primary care laboratories using the POC instruments Thrombotrack, CoaguChek S, or Hemochron Jr. Signature. The control rules 12S, 13S, exponential weighted moving average, and the deviation limits of ± 10% and ± 20% were evaluated by their probability of error detection and false rejections. The total within-lab coefficient of variation was 3.8% and 6.9% for Thrombotrack, 8.9% and 10.5% for CoaguChek S, and 9.4% and 14.8% for Hemochron Jr. Signature for the control sample measurements and the split sample measurements, respectively. The probability of error detection was higher using a lyophilised control material than a patient split sample for all three instruments, whereas the probability of false rejection was similar. A higher probability of error detection occurred when lyophilised control material was used compared with the patient split samples; therefore, lyophilised control material should be used for internal analytical quality control of prothrombin time in primary health care.

Keywords

International normalised ratio - point-of-care testing - internal analytical quality control - computer simulation - power functions
 

  • References

  • 1 Sandberg S, Nordin G, Martensson A. et al. Laboratory equipment for primary health care should be tested by independent authorities. Scandinavian SKUP is a good alternative. Lakartidningen 2008; 105: 3334-3339.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Westgard JO, Klee G. Quality Management. In: Textbook of Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics. 4th ed. Elsevier Saunders; 2006: 485-529.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 NCCLS. Point-of-Care Monitoring of Anticoagulation Therapy; Approved Guideline. The National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, NCCLS document H49-A 2004..
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kitchen DP, Kitchen S, Jennings I. et al. Quality assessment in point-of-care coagulation testing. Semin Thromb Hemost 2008; 34: 647-653.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Trydal T, Bolann B, Brosstad F. et al. Analysis of prothrombin time in primary health care. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2005; 125: 2048-2049.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Solvik UO, Stavelin A, Christensen NG. et al. External quality assessment of prothrombin time: the split-sample model compared with external quality assessment with commercial control material. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2006; 66: 337-349.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Blann AD, Fitzmaurice DA, Lip GY. Anticoagulation in hospitals and general practice. Br Med J 2003; 326: 153-156.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Baglin T, Luddington R. Reliability of delayed INR determination: implications for decentralized anticoagulant care with off-site blood sampling. Br J Haematol 1997; 96: 431-434.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Eilertsen H, Dagre AT, Ulveland K. Peroral anticoagulant treatment--are the INR values reliable?. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2000; 120: 618.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Burnett RW. Accurate estimation of standard deviations for quantitative methods used in clinical chemistry. Clin Chem 1975; 21: 1935-1938.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Blis CI. Statistics in Biology. McGraw-Hill Book Company 1967; 01: 231-279.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dybkaer R, Jorgensen K. Measurement, value, and scale. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 1989; 194: 69-76.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Neubauer AS. The EWMA control chart: properties and comparison with other quality-control procedures by computer simulation. Clin Chem 1997; 43: 594-601.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Westgard JO, Groth T, Aronsson T. et al. Performance characteristics of rules for internal quality control: probabilities for false rejection and error detection. Clin Chem 1977; 23: 1857-1867.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Winkel P. Statistisk kvalitetsudvikling i klink og laboratorium. Ingeniøren bøger. Copenhagen 2002; 149-163.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Westgard JO, Groth T. Power functions for statistical control rules. Clin Chem 1979; 25: 863-869.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 van den Besselaar AM. Accuracy, precision, and quality control for point-of-care testing of oral anticoagulation. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2001; 12: 35-40.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 NCCLS. Method Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples; Approved Guideline – Second Edition. NCCLS document EP9-A2. 2002
    PubMedGoogle Scholar