Cembrowski G S, Vanderlinde R E
Park Nicollet Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN 55416.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1988 Apr;112(4):374-6.
A questionnaire concerned with special practices associated with proficiency testing was sent to the Chemistry Supervisor, Hematology Supervisor, and Chief Pathologist of 190 Pennsylvania hospital laboratories. Responses were received from 156 hospitals (82.1%) and included responses from 131 chemistry supervisors, 108 hematology supervisors, and 92 chief pathologists. The vast majority of respondents (85% to 95%) indicated moderate to great pressure to score acceptably. The survey showed a high prevalence of special practices, including analysis of controls just prior to survey specimens (23% to 42%), analysis in duplicate on a single instrument (52% to 88%), analysis on more than one instrument (17% to 31%), analysis on two or more separate days (20% to 39%), and delay of testing until an instrument is "working better" (24% to 34%). Approximately 63% of chemistry results and 72% of hematology results are reported as averages or medians. Pathologists consistently reported a lower prevalence of special practices than did laboratory supervisors. These high prevalences of special practices associated with proficiency testing specimens have important implications for proficiency testing programs.
一份关于与能力验证相关的特殊做法的调查问卷被发送给了宾夕法尼亚州190家医院实验室的化学主管、血液学主管和病理科主任。收到了156家医院（82.1%）的回复，其中包括131位化学主管、108位血液学主管和92位病理科主任的回复。绝大多数受访者（85%至95%）表示在获得可接受分数方面存在中度至极大的压力。调查显示特殊做法的发生率很高，包括在检测样本之前立即分析质控品（23%至42%）、在单一仪器上进行重复分析（52%至88%）、在多台仪器上进行分析（17%至31%）、在两个或更多不同日期进行分析（20%至39%）以及将检测推迟到仪器“运行得更好”时（24%至34%）。大约63%的化学检测结果和72%的血液学检测结果被报告为平均值或中位数。病理科医生报告的特殊做法发生率始终低于实验室主管。这些与能力验证样本相关的特殊做法的高发生率对能力验证计划具有重要意义。
