 |
|
Variation in Proficiency Testing Performance by Testing Site
Tina M. Stull, MD;
Thomas L. Hearn, PhD;
John S. Hancock;
James H. Handsfield, MPH;
Carlyn L. Collins, MD, MPH
JAMA. 1998;279:463-467.
Context.— Congress enacted the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) to promote uniform quality and standards among all testing sites in the United States. The performance indicators specified in the legislation are proficiency testing (PT) performance and periodic inspections.
Objective.— To evaluate variation in PT performance by type of testing facility during the first year of compulsory participation under CLIA.
Design.— All 1994 PT score data electronically reported to the Health Care Financing Administration as a component of compliance with the CLIA regulations were obtained. Over 1.2 million PT event scores from 17058 unique testing sites were sorted into 2 groups based on the type of testing facility: hospitals and independent laboratories (HI) and all other testing sites (AOT).
Main Outcome Measures.— Satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance rates for HI and AOT for each analyte and/or test, according to the criteria specified by the CLIA regulations.
Results.— The aggregate rates of satisfactory event performance for all regulated analytes, tests, and specialties were 97% and 91% for the HI and AOT groups, respectively. The aggregate odds ratio for unsatisfactory PT event performance for the AOT group compared with the HI group was 2.89, with a range of 2.19 to 7.51 for the individual analytes.
Conclusion.— There was a consistent difference in PT performance during the first full year of compulsory PT under the CLIA regulations based on the type of testing facility performing the analysis. Traditional testing sites achieved higher rates of satisfactory performance than newly regulated, alternative testing sites.
From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Practice Program Office, Division of Laboratory Systems, Atlanta, Ga.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
Are Physicians' Office Laboratory Results of Comparable Quality to Those Produced in Other Laboratory Settings?
Jerry Hurst, Karen Nickel, and Lee H. Hilborne
JAMA. 1998;279(6):468-471.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Is It Time to Turn the Page on CLIA 1988?
Paul Bachner
JAMA. 1998;279(6):473-475.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Impact of Trichomonas vaginalis Transcription-Mediated Amplification-Based Analyte-Specific-Reagent Testing in a Metropolitan Setting of High Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevalence
Munson et al.
J. Clin. Microbiol. 2008;46:3368-3374.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Brief Review of Current and Proposed Federal Government Regulation of Assisted Reproduction Laboratories in the United States
Carrell and Cartmill
J Androl 2002;23:611-617.
FULL TEXT
Errors in Laboratory Medicine
Bonini et al.
Clin. Chem. 2002;48:691-698.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Results of the American Association of Bioanalysts national proficiency testing programme in andrology
Keel et al.
Hum Reprod 2000;15:680-686.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evaluation of Mycology Laboratory Proficiency Testing
Reilly et al.
J. Clin. Microbiol. 1999;37:2297-2305.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Turf Battles in Radiology: How the Radiology Community Can Collectively Respond to the Challenge
Levin et al.
Radiology 1999;211:301-305.
FULL TEXT
Accuracy of Physicians' Office Laboratory Results
Huffstutter et al.
JAMA 1998;280:129-132.
FULL TEXT
Is It Time to Turn the Page on CLIA 1988?
Bachner
JAMA 1998;279:473-475.
FULL TEXT
|
