Application of Sigma Metrics Analysis for the Assessment and Modification of Quality Control Program in the Clinical Chemistry Laboratory of a Tertiary Care Hospital

The Evaluation of the Quality Performance of Biochemical Analytes in Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Using Six Sigma Matrices

Introduction This study was conducted to assess the analytical performance of biochemical tests using Six Sigma methodology and to assess the underlying causes of unsatisfied performance of analytes with a sigma value of less than 4 using quality goal index (QGI) and root cause analysis (RCA). Methodology Daily data for internal quality control (IQC) for both level 1 (L1) and level 2 (L2) and monthly data for external quality assessment for a period of six months were recorded. The coefficient of variation (CV), bias, and total allowable error (TEa) were calculated to analyze the sigma (σ) values for 19 biochemical analytes. Quality goal index (QGI) analysis was done to analyze impressions and inaccuracies in analyte performance having a sigma value of less than 4. Root cause analysis (RCA) was done to evaluate the possible causes that can improve quality performance. Results Creatinine and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) had sigma metrics of ≤2.0, and chloride, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) had sigma values between 2 and 3. Glucose, total protein (TP), phosphate (Phos), and potassium had sigma values between 4 and 5 in level 1 QC. Sigma grading for level 2 quality control (QC) also gave similar results. For analytes with σ < 4, QGI analysis exposed inaccuracy or imprecision issues and identified errors such as the reconstitution of IQC, storage temperature, and air bubbles while processing the QC, being common causes of poor performance. Conclusion Six Sigma approach is helpful for quality assurance and identifying areas for improvement. Assessing Six Sigma metrics should be a routine practice to decide the frequency of QC run and to detect errors in analysis.

"Six Sigma" standard as a level of quality of biochemical laboratories

The principal role of biochemical laboratories is responsibility for reliable, reproducible, accurate, timely, and accurately interpreted analysis results that help in making clinical decisions, while ensuring the desired clinical outcomes. To achieve this goal, the laboratory should introduce and maintain quality control in all phases of work. The importance of applying the Six SIGMA quality model has been analyzed in a large number of scientific studies. The purpose of this review is to highlight the importance of using six SIGMA metrics in biochemical laboratories and the current application of six SIGMA metrics in all laboratory work procedures. It has been shown that the six SIGMA model can be very useful in improving all phases of laboratory work, as well as that a detailed assessment of all procedures of the phases of work and improvement of the laboratory's quality control system is crucial for the laboratory to have the highest level of six SIGMA. Clinical laboratories should use SIGMA metrics to monitor their performance, as it makes it easier to identify gaps in their performance, thereby improving their efficiency and patient safety. Medical laboratory quality managers should provide a systematic methodology for analyzing and correcting quality assurance systems to achieve Six SIGMA quality-level standards.

Assessment of Sigma Metrics for Routine Chemistry Testing in 4 Laboratories in Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa

BACKGROUND

Sigma metrics is a quantitative management tool. This study assessed the Six Sigma score for 26 chemistry analytes, compared scores with different total allowable errors (TEa) and use of scores for internal quality control (IQC) rules in 4 Laboratories in Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa.

METHODS

Utilizing 6 months of IQC SD, CV, and bias data on albumin, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase, amylase, aspartate aminotransferase, bicarbonate, calcium, total cholesterol, creatine kinase, chloride, creatinine, gamma glutamyl transferase, glucose, HDL-cholesterol, potassium, lactate dehydrogenase, magnesium, sodium, inorganic phosphate, direct bilirubin, total bilirubin, triglycerides, total protein, urea nitrogen, uric acid, and C-reactive protein (CRP) Six Sigma scores were calculated using Microsoft Excel 2016 and ideal IQC rules were determined. Six Sigma scores using Ricos et al. 2014, Royal College of Pathologists Australasia, and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments TEas were compared.

RESULTS

For levels 1, 2, and 3 respectively, analytes scoring >3 sigma was 9 (35%), 12 (46%), and 14 (54%) in Laboratory A; Laboratory B had 15 (58%), 19 (73%), and 17 (65%); Laboratory C had 12 (46%), 13 (50%), and 15 (58%); and Laboratory D had 13 (50%), 18 (69%), and 18 (69%). Albumin, calcium, sodium, magnesium, bicarbonate, and chloride scored <3; CRP scored >6 for all. In Laboratories A, B, C, and D, 7 (27%), 7 (27%), 6 (23%), and 8 (31%) analytes, respectively, required only 1 IQC rule. One of 21 analytes for Laboratories C and D, 3 for Laboratory A, and 0 for Laboratory B had the same sigma score with all 3 databases.

CONCLUSION

Despite South Africa being a developing nation, many analytes are able to achieve >3 sigma.

Evaluation of Sigma metric approach for monitoring the performance of automated analyzers in hematology unit of Alexandria Main University Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Sigma metric offers a quantitative framework for evaluating process performance in clinical laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of automated analyzers in hematology unit of Alexandria Main University Hospital using the sigma metric approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quality control data were collected for 6 months, and sigma value was calculated from hematology analyzers SYSMEX (XN 1000, XT 1800i), ADVIA (2120i, 2120), and coagulation analyzers SYSMEX CA 1500 (3610, 6336).

RESULTS

For the normal control level, satisfactory mean sigma value ≥3 was observed for all of the studied parameters by all analyzers. For the high control level, red blood cell count by ADVIA 2120, and hematocrit by ADVIA (2120i and 2120) performed poorly with a mean sigma value <3. For the low control level, red blood cell count by ADVIA (2120i and 2120), hemoglobin by ADVIA 2120, hematocrit by ADVIA (2120i and 2120) and SYSMEX XN 1000, platelet count by the SYSMEX XT 1800i also performed poorly with a mean sigma value <3. Satisfactory mean sigma value of ≥3 was observed for prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time for both normal and pathological control levels and analyzers.

CONCLUSION

Sigma metrics can be used as a guide to make QC strategy and plan QC frequency and can facilitate the comparison of the same assay performance across multiple systems. Harmonization for TEa source is recommended to standardize sigma value calculation.

Analysis of performance of clinical biochemistry laboratory using Sigma metrics and Quality Goal Index

Background

Unreliable and ingenuine results issued by clinical laboratories have serious consequences for the patients. Sigma metrics is a standardized tool for Quality assessment for test performance in a laboratory.

Objective

To evaluate the performance of routine biochemistry laboratory at MMIMSR, Mullana in terms of Sigma metrics and Quality Goal Index.

Material and methods

This cross sectional study evaluated performance of 14 routine chemistry parameters using retrospective Internal Quality Control data of two levels on Siemens Dimension Rxl from Feb to Jul 2019 for CV% and EQAS reports from CMC, Vellore for Bias%. Sigma metrics was calculated using total allowable error targets as per CLIA and Biological Variability database guidelines.

Results

For level-2 IQC; TG, Chol, ALP showed excellent performance with σ ​> ​6 while σ ​< ​3 was observed for AST, Total Protein, Glucose, BUN and ALT using CLIA guidelines while in IQC Level-3 poor performers were only BUN and ALT with Ca, TG and Chol showing σ ​> ​6. Further by using Biological Variability data guidelines; 10 parameters of IQC Level-2 and 5 of IQC level-3 were poor performers with σ ​< ​3.

Conclusion

Sigma metrics is an excellent tool for performance analysis of tests performed in a clinical laboratory. Lack of precision in terms of CV% was seen for majority of the poor performers. Total allowable error targets using Biological Variability data revealed σ ​< ​3 for 10 parameters while using CLIA guidelines σ ​< ​3 was seen for only 5 parameters of IQC level-2.

Assessment of quality control system by sigma metrics and quality goal index ratio: A roadmap towards preparation for NABL

AIM

To study sigma metrics and quality goal index ratio (QGI).

METHODS

The retrospective study was conducted at the Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory, PGIMS, Rohtak, which recently became a National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration of Laboratories accredited lab as per the International Organization for Standardization 15189:2012 and provides service to a > 1700-bed tertiary care hospital. Data of 16 analytes was extracted over a period of one year from January 2017 to December 2017 for calculation of precision, accuracy, sigma metrics, total error, and QGI.

RESULTS

The average coefficient of variation ranged from 2.12% (albumin) to 5.42% (creatinine) for level 2 internal quality control and 2% (albumin) to 3.62% (high density lipoprotein-cholesterol) for level 3 internal quality control. Average coefficient of variation of all the parameters was below 5%, reflecting very good precision. The sigma metrics for level 2 indicated that 11 (68.5%) of the 16 parameters fall short of meeting Six Sigma quality performance. Of these, five failed to meet minimum sigma quality performance with metrics less than 3, and another six just met minimal acceptable performance with sigma metrics between 3 and 6. For level 3, the data collected indicated eight (50%) of the parameters did not achieve Six Sigma quality performance, out of which three had metrics less than 3, and five had metrics between 3 and 6. QGI ratio indicated that the main problem was inaccuracy in the case of total cholesterol, aspartate transaminase, and alanine transaminase (QGI > 1.2), imprecision in the case of urea (QGI < 0.8), and both imprecision and inaccuracy for glucose.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of sigma metrics and QGI, it may be concluded that the Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory, PGIMS, Rohtak was able to achieve satisfactory results with world class performance for many analytes one year preceding the accreditation by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration of Laboratories. Aspartate transaminase and alanine transaminase required strict external quality assurance scheme monitoring and modification in quality control procedure as their QGI ratio showed inaccuracy.

Application of Six Sigma for evaluating the analytical quality of tumor marker assays

CONTEXT

The results of detection assays for the same specimen are usually quite different in different laboratories or when tested with different detection systems.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to investigate the value of applying sigma metrics derived from different standards for allowable total error (TEa) in evaluating the analytical quality of tumor marker assays.

METHODS

Assays were evaluated for these six tumor markers: total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), carbohydrate antigen 199 (CA199), carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), and carbohydrate antigen 153 (CA153). Sigma values were calculated for two concentrations of quality control products to assess differences in quality of tumor marker assays. Improvement measures were recommended according to the quality goal index, and appropriate quality control rules were selected according to the sigma value.

RESULTS

The sigma value was highest using the higher biological variation-derived "appropriate" TEa standard: it was sigma ≥6 or higher in 16.7% of tumor markers. Sigma was below 6 for all tumor markers using the other three TEa. CEA, AFP, CA199, CA125, and CA153 required improved precision. The marker tPSA required improve precision and accuracy. According to sigma values by using China's external quality assessment standards, CEA, AFP, CA125, and CA153 require 1_3s /2_2s /R_4s /4_1s multirules for internal quality control, CA199 requires use of 1_3s /2_2s /R_4s /4_1s /8_x multirules, and tPSA requires maximum quality control rules.

CONCLUSION

Six Sigma is useful for evaluating performance of tumor markers assays and has important application value in the quality control of these assays.

Application of Sigma metrics in assessing the clinical performance of verified versus non-verified reagents for routine biochemical analytes

INTRODUCTION

Sigma metrics analysis is considered an objective method to evaluate the performance of a new measurement system. This study was designed to assess the analytical performance of verified versus non-verified reagents for routine biochemical analytes in terms of Sigma metrics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated according to the mean and standard deviation (SD) derived from the internal quality control for 20 consecutive days. The data were measured on an Architect c16000 analyser with reagents from four manufacturers. Commercial reference materials were used to estimate the bias. Total allowable error (TEa) was based on the CLIA 1988 guidelines. Sigma metrics were calculated in terms of CV, percent bias and TEa. Normalized method decisions charts were built by plotting the normalized bias (biasa: bias%/TEa) on the Y-axis and the normalized imprecision (CVa: mean CV%/TEa) on the X-axis.

RESULTS

The reagents were compared between different manufacturers in terms of the Sigma metrics for relevant analytes. Abbott and Leadman's verified reagents provided better Sigma metrics for the alanine aminotransferase assay than non-verified reagents (Mindray and Zybio). All reagents performed well for the aspartate aminotransferase and uric acid assays with a sigma of 5 or higher. Abbott achieved the best performance for the urea assay, evidenced by the sigma of 2.83 higher than all reagents, which were below 1-sigma.

CONCLUSION

Sigma metrics analysis system is helpful for clarifying the performance of candidate non-verified reagents in clinical laboratory. Our study suggests that the quality of non-verified reagents should be assessed strictly.