Sigma metrics in quality control- An innovative tool
Open Access
- 15 January 2022
- journal article
- Published by IP Innovative Publication Pvt Ltd in International Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Research
- Vol. 8 (4), 253-259
- https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijcbr.2021.055
Abstract
The clinical laboratory in today’s world is a rapidly evolving field which faces a constant pressure to produce quick and reliable results. Sigma metric is a new tool which helps to reduce process variability, quantitate the approximate number of analytical errors, and evaluate and guide for better quality control (QC) practices.To analyze sigma metrics of 16 biochemistry analytes using ERBA XL 200 Biochemistry analyzer, interpret parameter performance, compare analyzer performance with other Middle East studies and modify existing QC practices.This study was undertaken at a clinical laboratory for a period of 12 months from January to December 2020 for the following analytes: albumin (ALB), alanine amino transferase (SGPT), aspartate amino transferase (SGOT), alkaline phosphatase (ALKP), bilirubin total (BIL T), bilirubin direct (BIL D), calcium (CAL), cholesterol (CHOL), creatinine (CREAT), gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT), glucose (GLUC), high density lipoprotein (HDL), triglyceride (TG), total protein (PROT), uric acid (UA) and urea. The Coefficient of variance (CV%) and Bias % were calculated from internal quality control (IQC) and external quality assurance scheme (EQAS) records respectively. Total allowable error (TEa) was obtained using guidelines Clinical Laboratories Improvement Act guidelines (CLIA). Sigma metrics was calculated using CV%, Bias% and TEa for the above parameters. It was found that 5 analytes in level 1 and 8 analytes in level 2 had greater than 6 sigma performance indicating world class quality. Cholesterol, glucose (level 1 and 2) and creatinine level 1 showed >4 sigma performance i.e acceptable performance. Urea (both levels) and GGT (level 1) showed <3 sigma and were therefore identified as the problem analytes. Sigma metrics helps to assess analytic methodologies and can serve as an important self assessment tool for quality assurance in the clinical laboratory. Sigma metric evaluation in this study helped to evaluate the quality of several analytes and also categorize them from high performing to problematic analytes, indicating the utility of this tool. In conclusion, parameters showing lesser than 3 sigma need strict monitoring and modification of quality control procedure with change in method if necessary.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison between Sigma metrics in four accredited Egyptian medical laboratories in some biochemical tests: an initiative towards sigma calculation harmonizationBiochemia Medica, 2018
- Analytical Sigma metrics: A review of Six Sigma implementation tools for medical laboratoriesBiochemia Medica, 2018
- Assessment of sigma metrics results of serum glucose and lipid profile tested by automated chemistry analyzer in medical city hospitals in IraqInternational Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 2017
- The use of six sigma methodology to evaluate the analytical performances of clinical chemistry analyzersTurkish Journal of Biochemistry, 2016
- Application of Sigma Metrics Analysis for the Assessment and Modification of Quality Control Program in the Clinical Chemistry Laboratory of a Tertiary Care HospitalIndian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry, 2016
- Six Sigma Implementation in Healthcare Industry: Past, Present and FutureInternational Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 2015
- Sigma metrics used to assess analytical quality of clinical chemistry assays: importance of the allowable total error (TEa) targetcclm, 2014
- Internal quality control: best practiceJournal of Clinical Pathology, 2013
- Quantitative Application of Sigma Metrics in Medical BiochemistryJournal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 2013
- Internal quality control: planning and implementation strategiesAnnals of Clinical Biochemistry: International Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 2003