Uptake of recommended common reference intervals for chemical pathology in Australia.

Background Reference intervals are a vital part of reporting numerical pathology results. It is known, however, that variation in reference intervals between laboratories is common, even when analytical methods support common reference intervals. In response to this, in Australia, the Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemists together with the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia published in 2014 a set of recommended common reference intervals for 11 common serum analytes (sodium, potassium, chloride, bicarbonate, creatinine male, creatinine female, calcium, calcium adjusted for albumin, phosphate, magnesium, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase and total protein). Methods Uptake of recommended common reference intervals in Australian laboratories was assessed using data from four annual cycles of the RCPAQAP reference intervals external quality assurance programme. Results Over three years, from 2013 to 2016, the use of the recommended upper and lower reference limits has increased from 40% to 83%. Nearly half of the intervals in use by enrolled laboratories in 2016 have been changed in this time period, indicating an active response to the guidelines. Conclusions These data support the activities of the Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemists and Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia in demonstrating a change in laboratory behaviour to reduce unnecessary variation in reference intervals and thus provide a consistent message to doctor and patients irrespective of the laboratory used.

Safe reading of chemical pathology reports: the RCPAQAP Report Assessment Survey.

Pathology reports are a vital component of the request-test-report cycle communicating pathology results to doctors to support clinical decision making. This should be done in a comprehensive, safe and time-efficient manner. As doctors may receive reports from different laboratories these goals can be achieved more readily if reports are formatted in the same way. This study evaluates the formatting of paper reports produced by Australian laboratories for numerical biochemistry results. As part of the RCPAQAP Liquid Serum Chemistry program in 2015, laboratories were invited to supply a routine paper report displaying the results. A total of 37 reports were received for analysis. These reports were assessed for variation in a range of components and, where possible, against relevant Australian standards and guidelines. In summary, there was a wide variation in most of the report components assessed including test names, result alignment, result flagging, sequence of data elements on the page, date formatting and patient name formatting. In most components there was also variation from the Standards. In order to ensure safe result transmission by printed reports there is a need to promote the adoption of current reporting standards and monitor compliance with similar external quality assurance programs.

Laboratory medicine best practice guideline: vitamins a, e and the carotenoids in blood.

Despite apparent method similarities between laboratories there appear to be confounding factors inhibiting uniform reporting and standardisation of vitamin assays. The Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemists (AACB) Vitamins Working Party, in conjunction with The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs, has formulated a guideline to improve performance, reproducibility and accuracy of fat-soluble vitamin results. The aim of the guideline is to identify critical pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical components of the analysis of vitamins A, E and carotenoids in blood to promote best practice and harmonisation. This best practice guideline has been developed with reference to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "Laboratory Medicine Best Practices: Developing an Evidence-Based Review and Evaluation Process". The CDC document cites an evaluation framework for generating best practice recommendations that are specific to laboratory medicine. These 50 recommendations proposed herein, were generated from a comprehensive literature search and the extensive combined experience of the AACB Vitamins Working Party members. They were formulated based on comparison between an impact assessment rating and strength of evidence and were classified as either: (1) strongly recommend, (2) recommend, (3) no recommendation for or against, or (4) recommend against. These best practice recommendations represent the consensus views, in association with peer reviewed evidence of the AACB Vitamins Working Party, towards best practice for the collection, analysis and interpretation of vitamins A, E and carotenoids in blood.

RCPAQAP First Combined Measurement and Reference Interval Survey.

Reference intervals are commonly considered to allow for between-laboratory bias. The RCPAQAP Liquid Serum Chemistry Program has collected data on laboratory measurements as well as reference intervals. This allows assessment of the between-laboratory variation in results, reference intervals and the information transmitted by the combination of these factors. For the majority of common chemistry analytes, the between-laboratory variation in reference intervals is greater than the variation in results. Additionally the reference interval variation is generally not related to bias between the results. Use of common reference intervals, either as an average of the current intervals in use, or the intervals proposed by the AACB Harmonisation Group, improved the variation seen in the information produced by different laboratories.