Advertisement

Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 93–101 | Cite as

Proficiency testing in analytical chemistry, microbiology and laboratory medicine: discussions on current practice and future directions

  • Brian BrookmanEmail author
  • Owen Butler
  • Laura Ciaralli
  • Monika Horsky
  • Caroline Laurent
  • Tracey Noblett
  • Ulf Örnemark
  • Marina Patriarca
  • Lorens P. Sibbesen
  • Ulla Tiikkainen
  • Kees van Putten
  • Piotr Robouch
Discussion Forum

Abstract

A summary of the working group discussions on proficiency testing (PT) and external quality assessment (EQA) held at the Eurachem Workshop, Portorož, Slovenia, 9–12 October 2017, is provided. The working groups covered a range of issues concerned with current practice and future directions; the importance of interpretative PT/EQA schemes; changes to PT/EQA schemes in developing countries over the last 10 years; implementing ISO/IEC 17043 for sampling PT/EQA schemes; traditional versus virtual PT/EQA items; experience of the implementation of EA-4/18; and use and treatment of measurement uncertainty in PT/EQA schemes. Delegates from fifty-two countries attended the workshop, and this diversity of different backgrounds was represented on each of the working groups to capture a range of views and experience from a number of different measurement sectors. Working group representatives included PT/EQA providers, participants in PT/EQA schemes, end users of PT/EQA results such as accreditation bodies and regulatory authorities, national measurement institutes, laboratory associations, suppliers, universities and independent consultants from countries around the world.

Keywords

Proficiency testing External quality assessment Performance evaluation Quality assurance Quality control Measurement uncertainty 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors (who were convenors of the working groups) would like to thank all the attendees at the working groups. The views put forward during the working group discussions which are summarised in this paper do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the authors or their affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Mann I, Brookman B (eds) (2011) Eurachem guide: selection, use and interpretation of proficiency testing schemes, 2nd edn. www.eurachem.org
  2. 2.
    ISO/IEC 17043 (2010) Conformity assessment—general requirements for proficiency testing. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO/IEC 17025 (2017) General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    EA-4/18:2010 Guidance on the level and frequency of proficiency testing participation. www.european-accreditation.org. Accessed 17 Aug 2018
  5. 5.
    Örnemark U, Boley N, Saeed K et al (2001) Accred Qual Assur 6:140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brookman B, Papadakis I, Squirrell A et al (2004) Accred Qual Assur 9:635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO/IEC 15189 (2007) Medical laboratories—requirements for quality and competence. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuselman I, Fajgelj A (2010) Pure Appl Chem 82(5):1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nordtest Report TR 537 (2011) Handbook for calculation of measurement uncertainty in environmental laboratories, 3rd edn. www.nordtest.info
  10. 10.
    Ellison SLR, Williams A (eds) (2012) Eurachem/CITAC Guide CG4: Eurachem/CITAC Guide, quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement, 3rd edn. www.eurachem.org. Accessed 17 Aug 2018

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Brookman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Owen Butler
    • 2
  • Laura Ciaralli
    • 3
  • Monika Horsky
    • 4
  • Caroline Laurent
    • 5
  • Tracey Noblett
    • 1
  • Ulf Örnemark
    • 6
  • Marina Patriarca
    • 3
  • Lorens P. Sibbesen
    • 7
  • Ulla Tiikkainen
    • 8
  • Kees van Putten
    • 9
  • Piotr Robouch
    • 10
  1. 1.LGCBuryUK
  2. 2.Health and Safety ExecutiveBuxtonUK
  3. 3.Istituto Superiore di SanitàRomeItaly
  4. 4.IAEAViennaAustria
  5. 5.BIPEAParisFrance
  6. 6.Emendo DokumentgranskningTunSweden
  7. 7.Lab Quality InternationalOdenseDenmark
  8. 8.LabqualityHelsinkiFinland
  9. 9.DucaresUtrechtThe Netherlands
  10. 10.European CommissionJoint Research CentreGeelBelgium

Personalised recommendations