Annual Report on External Quality Assessment in Blood Bank Tests in Korea (2009).
- Author:
Seog Woon KWON
1
;
Dae Won KIM
;
Kyu Sup HAN
;
Hyun Ok KIM
;
Jang Soo SEO
;
Young Ju CHA
;
Dong Seok JEON
;
Dong Wook RYANG
;
Hyun Jun PARK
;
Young Ae LIM
;
Kye Chul KWON
;
Seon Ho LEE
;
Sung Ha KANG
;
Yoo Sung HWANG
Author Information
1. Blood Bank Subcommittee, The Korea Association of Quality Assurance for Clinical Laboratory, Seoul, Korea. swkwon@amc.seoul.kr
- Publication Type:Note
- Keywords:
Blood bank tests;
External quality assessment;
Antiglobulin test;
Crossmatching
- MeSH:
Academies and Institutes;
Blood Banks;
Coombs Test;
Korea;
Mass Screening;
Quality Improvement
- From:Journal of Laboratory Medicine and Quality Assurance
2010;32(1):95-101
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: We report here the results of surveys for external quality assessment of blood bank tests performed in 2009. METHODS: Survey specimens were sent three times to 488, 491 and 490 participant institutes, and the response rates for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trial were 97.7%, 98.0%, and 98.0%, respectively. Test items for the surveys were ABO grouping, Rh (D) typing, crossmatching, direct antiglobulin test, antibody screening and antibody identification test. RESULTS: The average accuracy rates of ABO grouping and Rh typing were 99.6-100% and 98.5-100%, respectively. In crossmatching test, the accuracy rates were 99.3-99.8% for the compatible samples, 92.7-100% for the incompatible samples, and 92.6-93.1% for the samples which could be detected as incompatible only by antiglobulin method. The accuracy rates of direct antiglobulin test were 98.5-100% for negative samples and 98.1-98.8% for positive samples. The correctresults were reported by 98.0-100% of the surveyed institutions for antibody screening test and 82.9-100% for antibody identification test. Nineteen institutions gave repeatedly incorrect answers for crossmatching test. Eight institutions out of them gave incorrect answers for all the test specimens sent out 3 times last year. CONCLUSIONS: The overall results of this survey were good, however, it is required that the institutions where the incorrect results were reported should perform corrective actions for quality improvement.