Examination of data from both the General and Breast Diagnostic modules demonstrated consistent failure by some participants to submit results. This non‐participation fell into two categories.
The first of these was where the participant provided a response to some of the 10 cases but not to others. This has been described as "case non‐participation". This is addressed in the criteria where "case nonparticipation" is assigned to the lowest rank category of "unable to be assessed" and would scored as poor relative performance.
The second of these was where there was no response to an entire individual survey (all 10 cases not reported); this has been described as "survey non‐participation".
Analysis showed a small number of participants that did not submit some of the 10 survey cases. Of all participants enrolled in the General diagnostic module, between 2008 – 2010 survey nonparticipation (results for a whole survey have not been submitted) ranged from 7 – 17%. Laboratory participants represented 5 – 11% of survey non‐participation.
In the Breast diagnostic module, survey non‐participation from 2008 ‐ 2010 ranged from 10 – 21%. Laboratory participants represented 2 – 9% of survey non‐participation. In this module there is a higher proportion of individual participant enrolments compared to the general diagnostic module. Historically many laboratories have believed that enrolment in this module can only be by individual participant only, and therefore there are a significant number of laboratories not enrolled.
Document download
This publication is available as a downloadable document.
The Role of External Quality Assurance in Identifying Poor Laboratory Performance(PDF 518 KB)