Question 1 · Hard
A laboratory's creatinine EQAS results over three cycles have SDIs of +2.4, +2.6 and +2.3, against a peer group using the same analyser and reagent (acceptable within ±2). Its internal QC, with limits set from its own data, has stayed within ±2 SD throughout. The most appropriate conclusion is:
- APeer group mismatch; change the comparison group
- BPoor precision; widen the internal QC limits
- CRandom error on the EQAS samples; no action needed
- DA constant bias that internal QC cannot detect; check calibration
Show answerHide answer
Answer: D · A constant bias that internal QC cannot detect; check calibration
The SDI is (laboratory result - peer mean) / peer SD, and three consecutive values above +2 show a consistent positive bias. Internal QC detects change from the laboratory's own established mean; if that mean was set while the bias already existed, IQC stays in control and cannot reveal it. The calibration, calibrator lot and traceability should be checked and corrected. Random error would give SDIs of varying sign and size, and the peer group already matches the method.
- A: The peer group uses the same analyser and reagent, so it is the right comparison.
- B: The problem is bias, not imprecision; wider limits would hide errors.
- C: Random error would not give three consecutive SDIs above +2 in the same direction.