Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sense and nonsense in the process of accreditation of a pathology laboratory

  • Annual Review Issue
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of accreditation of a pathology laboratory is to control and optimize, in a permanent manner, good professional practice in clinical and molecular pathology, as defined by internationally established standards. Accreditation of a pathology laboratory is a key element in fine in increasing recognition of the quality of the analyses performed by a laboratory and in improving the care it provides to patients. One of the accreditation standards applied to clinical chemistry and pathology laboratories in the European Union is the ISO 15189 norm. Continued functioning of a pathology laboratory might in time be determined by whether or not it has succeeded the accreditation process. Necessary requirements for accreditation, according to the ISO 15189 norm, include an operational quality management system and continuous control of the methods used for diagnostic purposes. Given these goals, one would expect that all pathologists would agree on the positive effects of accreditation. Yet, some of the requirements stipulated in the accreditation standards, coming from the bodies that accredit pathology laboratories, and certain normative issues are perceived as arduous and sometimes not adapted to or even useless in daily pathology practice. The aim of this review is to elaborate why it is necessary to obtain accreditation but also why certain requirements for accreditation might be experienced as inappropriate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abu-Amero KK (2002) Overview of the laboratory accreditation programme of the College of American Pathologists. East Mediterr Health J 8:654–663

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen TC (2001) Quality: walk the walk. Arch Pathol Lab Med 135:1384–1386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Allen TC, M Elizabeth H. Hammond, Stanley J. Robboy, (2011) Quality and the College of American Pathologists. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine: November 2011, Vol. 135, No. 11, pp. 1441–1441.

  4. Burnett D, Blair C, Haeney MR, Jeffcoate SL, Scott KW, Williams DL (2002) Clinical pathology accreditation: standards for the medical laboratory. J Clin Pathol 55:729–733

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. [No authors listed] The College Accreditation Steering Committee (1990) Royal College of Pathologists’ United Kingdom pilot study of laboratory accreditation. J Clin Pathol 43:89–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Washetine K, Long E, Hofman V, et al (2013) The accreditation of a surgical pathology and somatic genetic laboratory (LPCE, CHU of Nice) according to the ISO 15189 norm: sharing of experience. Ann Pathol 33:386–397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aziz N, Zhao Q, Bry L, Driscoll DK, et al (2015) College of American Pathologists' laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing clinical tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med 139:481–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Allen LC (2013) Role of a quality management system in improving patient safety—laboratory aspects. Clin Biochem 46:1187–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Peter TF, Rotz PD, Blair DH, Khine AA, Freeman RR, Murtagh MM (2010) Impact of laboratory accreditation on patient care and the health system. Am J Clin Pathol 134:550–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schuerch C, Selna M, Jones J (2008) Laboratory clinical effectiveness: pathologists improving clinical outcomes. Clin Lab Med 28:223–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jiang Y, Wang M (2010) Personalized medicine in oncology: tailoring the right drug to the right patient. Biomark Med 4:523–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Potti A, Schilsky RL, Nevins JR (2010) Refocusing the war on cancer: the critical role of personalized treatment. Sci Transl Med 2:28cm13. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3000643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van Krieken JH, Hoefler G (2012) The times have changed: molecular pathology is here to stay. A commentary on: analytical performance of a PCR assay for the detection of KRAS mutations (codons 12/13 and 61) in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples of colorectal carcinoma, by Lee et al. In this issue. Virchows Arch 460:129–130

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bellon E, Ligtenberg MJ, Tejpar S, et al (2011) External quality assessment for KRAS testing is needed: setup of a European program and report of the first joined regional quality assessment rounds. Oncologist 16:467–478

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dyhdalo KS, Fitzgibbons PL, Goldsmith JD, Souers RJ, Nakhleh RE (2014) Laboratory compliance with the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing guidelines: a 3-year comparison of validation procedures. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138:876–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoeltge GA, Duckworth JK (1987) Review of proficiency testing performance of laboratories accredited by the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 111:1011–1014

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hofman V, Ilie M, Gavric-Tanga V, et al (2010) Role of the surgical pathology laboratory in the pre-analytical approach of molecular biology techniques. Ann Pathol 30:85–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lassalle S, Hofman V, Marius I, et al (2009) Assessment of morphology, antigenicity, and nucleic acid integrity for diagnostic thyroid pathology using formalin substitute fixatives. Thyroid 19:1239–1248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Srinivasan M, Sedmak D, Jewell S (2002) Effect of fixatives and tissue processing on the content and integrity of nucleic acids. Am J Pathol 161:1961–1971

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wood WG (2005) The preanalytical phase—can the requirements of the DIN-EN-ISO 15189 be met practically for all laboratories? A view of the "German situation". Clin Lab 51:665–671

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zarbo RJ, Gephardt GN, Howanitz PJ (1996) Intralaboratory timeliness of surgical pathology reports. Results of two College of American Pathologists Q-probes studies of biopsies and complex specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 120:234–244

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. MacNeil JD (2012) Analytical difficulties facing today’s regulatory laboratories: issues in method validation. Drug Test Anal Suppl 1:17–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bachner P, Howanitz PJ, Lent RW (1994) Quality improvement practices in clinical and anatomic pathology services. A College of American Pathologists Q-probes study of the program characteristics and performance in 580 institutions. Am J Clin Pathol 102:567–571

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gough LA, Reynolds TM (2000) Is clinical pathology accreditation worth it? A survey of CPA-accredited laboratories. Clin Perform Qual Health Care 8:195–201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Huisman W, Horvath AR, Burnett D, et al (2007) Accreditation of medical laboratories in the European Union. Clin Chem Lab Med 45:268–275

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Huisman W, European medical laboratory accreditation (2012) Present situation and steps to harmonisation. Clin Chem Lab Med 50:1147–1152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rauch CA, Nichols JH (2007) Laboratory accreditation and inspection. Clin Lab Med 27:845–858 vii

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. www.cofrac.fr. Cofrac, Comité Français d’Accréditation.

  29. www.european-accreditation.org. EA, European coopération for Accreditation.

  30. www.ilac.org. ILAC, International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation.

  31. www.afnor.fr. Afnor. Association française de normalisation.

  32. Long E, Hofman V, Ilie M, et al (2013) Setting up a department of molecular pathology in oncology in a pathology laboratory (LPCE, CHU de Nice). Ann Pathol 33:24–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Long E, Hofman V, Ilie M, et al (2013) Accreditation of the activity of molecular pathology according to ISO 15189: key steps to follow and the main potential pitfalls. Ann Pathol 33:12–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Betsou F (2014) Clinical biospecimens: reference materials, certified for nominal properties? Biopreserv Biobank12:113–120.

  35. Matzke EA, O’Donoghue S, Barnes RO et al. Certification for biobanks: the program developed by the Canadian Tumour Repository Network (CTRNet).Biopreserv Biobank. 10:426–432.

  36. Tworek JA, Volmar KE, McCall SJ, Bashleben CP, Howanitz PJ (2014) Q-probes studies in anatomic pathology: quality improvement through targeted benchmarking. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138:1156–1166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Pasteur Hospital, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, 30 Voie Romaine, 06001, Nice, Cedex 01, France

    Elodie Long-Mira, Kevin Washetine & Paul Hofman

  2. Hospital-Related Biobank (BB-0033-00025), Biobank06, Pasteur Hospital, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France

    Kevin Washetine & Paul Hofman

Authors
  1. Elodie Long-Mira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin Washetine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Hofman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Hofman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Long-Mira, E., Washetine, K. & Hofman, P. Sense and nonsense in the process of accreditation of a pathology laboratory. Virchows Arch 468, 43–49 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1837-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1837-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation