A review of the UK Clinical Quality Infrastructure following an HbA1c assay variation incident revealed gaps in laboratory medicine quality and led to new recommendations for risk management.
Highlights critical gaps in UK laboratory medicine quality infrastructure using a recent HbA1c misdiagnosis incident as a catalyst for systemic risk management improvements.
Abstract In the UK, in 2024, variation in the performance of the HbA1c assay resulted in the misdiagnosis of patients. This was well publicised in the media, and over 55,000 patients (in England) needed to be recalled for repeat testing, and many patients had their diagnosis changed. However, during the investigation into this event, it became clear that the Clinical Quality Infrastructure for laboratory medicine in the UK requires review. The importance of such an infrastructure was first proposed in the Barnes Report into how diagnostic variation resulted in misdiagnosis of patients. During our review into the recent event, it became clear that little of the Ian Barnes recommendations have been translated into practice, and we discovered further ‘gaps’ in the laboratory medicine Quality Infrastructure that could be applicable to the wider laboratory community. This article will not focus specifically on the HbA1c incident but will use HbA1c as an example of what we have used for a springboard for change and gives an overview of key areas that clinical laboratories should be considering as part of their risk management for the services provided for patient care. A number of recommendations have been made for UK laboratories endorsed by GIRFT (Getting It Right First Time), Birmingham Quality (member of the UK NEQAS consortium) and Weqas.
Marrington et al. (Fri,) conducted a review in Laboratory medicine quality. Clinical Quality Infrastructure was evaluated. A review of the UK Clinical Quality Infrastructure following an HbA1c assay variation incident revealed gaps in laboratory medicine quality and led to new recommendations for risk management.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: