Evaluation of performance of veterinary in‐clinic hematology analyzers

Abstract

BackgroundA previous study provided information regarding the quality of in‐clinic veterinary biochemistry testing. However, no similar studies for in‐clinic veterinary hematology testing have been conducted.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the quality of hematology testing in veterinary in‐clinic laboratories using results obtained from testing 3 levels of canine EDTA blood samples.MethodsClinicians prepared blood samples to achieve measurand concentrations within, below, and above their RIs and evaluated the samples in triplicate using their in‐clinic analyzers. Quality was assessed by comparison of calculated total error with quality requirements, determination of sigma metrics, use of a quality goal index, and agreement between in‐clinic and reference laboratory instruments. Suitability for statistical quality control was determined using adaptations from the computerized program, EZRules3.ResultsEvaluation of 10 veterinary in‐clinic hematology analyzers showed that these instruments often fail to meet quality requirements. At least 60% of analyzers reasonably determined RBC, WBC, HCT, and HGB, when assessed by most quality goal criteria; platelets were less reliably measured, with 80% deemed suitable for low platelet counts, but only 30% for high platelet counts, and automated differential leukocyte counts were generally considered unsuitable for clinical use with fewer than 40% of analyzers meeting the least stringent quality goal requirements. Fewer than 50% of analyzers were able to meet requirements for statistical quality control for any measurand.ConclusionThese findings reflect the current status of in‐clinic hematology analyzer performance and provide a basis for future evaluations of the quality of veterinary laboratory testing.