Long story short: an introduction to the short-term and longterm Six Sigma quality and its importance in laboratory medicine for the management of extra-analytical processes

Establishment of risk quality control charts based on risk management strategies

BACKGROUND

Risk management strategies have been proposed for applications in clinical laboratories to reduce patient risks; however, effective and visual risk-monitoring tools are currently lacking in medical laboratories. In this study, we constructed a risk quality control (QC) chart based on risk management strategies.

METHODS

We calculated the risk levels of QC materials based on Bayes' theorem by combining the total allowable error, QC results, and the maximum number of unacceptable errors in the laboratory. Then, we constructed a risk QC chart by presenting the Z values and corresponding risk levels of QC materials simultaneously. Finally, we evaluated the risk-monitoring capabilities of the risk QC charts by simulating different long-term errors in the laboratory.

RESULTS

The risk levels of QC materials increased as the QC results moved further away from the set mean. Larger sigma values led to fewer risks obtained for the same QC results. The constructed risk QC charts intuitively showed specific risk levels and could warn lab staff out-of-control, without the need for QC rules to make judgments. The risk levels of erroneous results differed for items with different sigma performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk-based QC charts allowed visualization of the QC results and specific risk levels simultaneously, providing more intuitive results than those obtained from traditional QC charts.

Six Sigma revisited: We need evidence to include a 1.5 SD shift in the extraanalytical phase of the total testing process

The Six Sigma methodology has been widely implemented in industry, healthcare, and laboratory medicine since the mid-1980s. The performance of a process is evaluated by the sigma metric (SM), and 6 sigma represents world class performance, which implies that only 3.4 or less defects (or errors) per million opportunities (DPMO) are expected to occur. However, statistically, 6 sigma corresponds to 0.002 DPMO rather than 3.4 DPMO. The reason for this difference is the introduction of a 1.5 standard deviation (SD) shift to account for the random variation of the process around its target. In contrast, a 1.5 SD shift should be taken into account for normally distributed data, such as the analytical phase of the total testing process; in practice, this shift has been included in all type of calculations related to SM including non-normally distributed data. This causes great deviation of the SM from the actual level. To ensure that the SM value accurately reflects process performance, we concluded that a 1.5 SD shift should be used where it is necessary and formally appropriate. Additionally, 1.5 SD shift should not be considered as a constant parameter automatically included in all calculations related to SM.