Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Objectives This study investigates the application of 15 Quality Indicators (QIs) in clinical laboratories in Fujian Province, China, from 2018 to 2023. It identifies the main causes of laboratory errors and explores issues in the application of QIs, providing a reference for establishing provincial state-of-the-art and operational quality specifications (QSs). Methods All clinical laboratories in Fujian Province were organized to submit general information and original QIs data through the online External Quality Assessment (EQA) system of the National Clinical Laboratory Center (NCCL) for a survey of 15 QIs. Data from 2018 to 2023 were downloaded for statistical analysis, and the current QSs for the 15 QIs in Fujian Province were compared and analyzed with those published by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Working Group on Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety (WG-LEPS). Results QIs data from 542 clinical laboratories were collected. The survey on data sources showed that the number of laboratories recording QIs data using Laboratory Information Systems (LIS) increased annually, but the growth was modest and the proportion was less than 50 %. Among the laboratories using LIS to record QIs data, 133 continuously participated in this survey for six years, reporting different QIs. Over the six years, all reported QIs showed significant improvement or at least remained stable. The best median Sigma (σ) metrics were for the percentage of critical values notification and timely critical values notification, reaching 6σ, followed by the percentage of incorrect laboratory reports, with σ metrics ranging from 4.9σ to 5.1σ. In contrast, the percentage of tests covered by internal quality control (IQC) (1.5σ–1.7σ) and inter-laboratory comparison (0.1σ) remained consistently low. Compared to the QSs published by IFCC WG-LEPS, the QSs for the 15 QIs in Fujian Province in 2023 were stricter or roughly equivalent, except for the percentage of incorrect laboratory reports (Fujian Province: 0–0.221, IFCC WG-LEPS: 0–0.03). Conclusions 1. The application of QIs has significantly improved the quality of testing in clinical laboratories in Fujian Province, but the percentage of tests covered by IQC and inter-laboratory comparison remain low; 2. Effective application of QIs requires the establishment of comprehensive LIS, unified calculation standards, and other supporting measures.
Li et al. (Thu,) studied this question.