Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    ISO/IEC 17025 (2017) General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. ISO, Geneva

    Google 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 6:140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Brookman B, Papadakis I, Squirrell A et al (2004) Accred Qual Assur 9:635

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    ISO/IEC 15189 (2007) Medical laboratories—requirements for quality and competence. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kuselman I, Fajgelj A (2010) Pure Appl Chem 82(5):1099

    Article  CAS  Google 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

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Brookman.

Additional information

Papers published in this section do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Editors, the Editorial Board and the Publisher. A critical and constructive debate in the Discussion Forum or a Letter to the Editor is strongly encouraged!

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brookman, B., Butler, O., Ciaralli, L. et al. Proficiency testing in analytical chemistry, microbiology and laboratory medicine: discussions on current practice and future directions. Accred Qual Assur 24, 93–101 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-018-1343-7

Download citation

Keywords

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