The Proficiency Test That Arrived Warm
A hospital laboratory participates in an external proficiency testing program for HbA1c. The shipment arrives on a Friday afternoon in July. The package contains three challenge vials and an instruction sheet specifying storage at 2–8 °C and analysis within 14 days of receipt. The ice pack is fully melted and the vials are warm to the touch; the courier's tracking shows the package sat on a delivery dock for 9 hours. The laboratory's HbA1c method is an immunoturbidimetric assay on a chemistry analyzer, and the PT provider's target values are assigned by a method-specific peer group. The lab supervisor is on vacation; a generalist technologist is covering. The due date for submission is 12 days away.
1. What should the technologist do first, and what should NOT be done?
Read the worked answer
First action: do not analyze the vials yet. The technologist should:
- Document the condition on receipt - melted ice pack, warm vials, tracking evidence of a 9-hour dock delay, date and time of receipt, and the name of the person who opened the package. Photograph the packaging if possible.
- Contact the PT provider before analysis, explain the shipping condition, and ask whether replacement vials can be shipped or whether the provider will accept a documented exception. Providers generally have a policy for compromised shipments, and the sooner it is raised, the more options exist.
- Notify the laboratory director or designee. PT handling is a regulated activity; the covering technologist should not make this call alone.
- Store the vials per the instructions (2–8 °C) in the interim so they are not further degraded, and record that they were stored correctly from the time of receipt.
What should NOT be done: analyze the vials as if nothing happened, discard them silently, or wait until the due date to raise the issue. Analyzing a compromised shipment and then reporting a failure - or a suspiciously good result - creates a documentation problem either way. Silent discard is worse: it looks like avoidance and may itself be a regulatory finding.
2. The provider cannot ship replacements in time and instructs the lab to analyze the vials and note the shipping deviation on the result form. How should the lab proceed, and how should a failing result be handled?
Read the worked answer
Proceed, but with a documented chain of custody for the decision:
- Analyze per the provider's instruction, using the routine method, the routine calibration, and the routine operator conditions - PT samples must be treated as patient samples. Do not run them in replicate and pick the best, and do not share results with other laboratories.
- Attach the deviation note to the result form as instructed: shipping delay, warm receipt, provider authorization to proceed, and the name of the person who authorized it.
- Retain all raw data - analyzer printouts, calibration records, QC results from the run, and the reagent lot numbers.
If the result fails:
- Do not investigate the PT sample itself as if it were a patient sample to find the "right" answer. Investigation should focus on whether the laboratory's own method, calibration, or QC was out of control at the time of analysis.
- Review the run's QC and the calibration status. If QC was acceptable and calibration current, the failure may be attributable to the shipping deviation - document that possibility, but do not assume it.
- Perform a root-cause analysis per the lab's nonconforming-event procedure, including whether the same failure would affect patient results.
- Report the failure honestly in the PT program and in any required regulatory submission. A documented shipping deviation is a legitimate explanation; a fabricated one is not.