President’s Desk: From concept to fruition

Create PDF

I’d also suggest taking a few minutes to check out Quality Cross Check, a relatively new quality improvement program. Quality Cross Check is not proficiency testing; rather, it is a source of metrics with which to monitor and compare the performance of multiple instruments within your laboratory.
The CAP offers seven accuracy-based programs and will add another in 2019. Most PT materials are manufactured to meet specifications and are not commutable, which can affect results (matrix effects). This is one reason PT results are peer-group graded. Grading for accuracy-based (or matrix-effect free, commutable) PT materials is set against reference method targets. They are manufactured by using human donors to closely mimic clinical samples. These programs are not widely available because their manufacture is so costly and in many instances not technically feasible given the programs’ high enrollment numbers.

CSA volunteers are leaders in their disciplines whose expertise enables us to help push the science forward. For example, CAP PT for next-generation sequencing began with a CSA project team charged with figuring out how to best approach quality improvement for a new and growing discipline. Karl V. Voelkerding, MD, a former president of the Association for Molecular Pathology, chaired the project team. Jason D. Merker, MD, PhD, who served on that project team and chairs the Molecular Oncology Committee, had a critical role in developing the first two somatic NGS PT programs (for solid tumors and hematologic malignancies). The complexity involved and collaboration required made the NGS Surveys a case study in how things get done within the CAP.

Over a period of six years, the project team developed PT materials and worked with the Commission on Laboratory Accreditation to draft the first accreditation checklists for NGS, published in 2012. Those were refined over time with the help of early adopters, who shared their experiences with and suggestions for the new technology as they always do. When the NGS Surveys were securely ensconced under the appropriate CSA scientific committees, we retired the project team, but not before creating a new CSA Genomic Medicine Resource Committee with Dr. Voelkerding as chair.

The science and technology required to construct the NGS programs was novel and complex. The group had three distinct mandates: develop the programs, write informatics programs to translate them, and work with the Council on Accreditation to write the checklists. I was not surprised to hear later that Dr. Voelkerding had described his (ongoing) time on the CSA and the opportunity to see so many different programs evolve from ideas to realities as one of the most professionally rewarding things he had ever done. I know exactly what he means.

Other providers may offer proficiency testing programs that will meet regulatory requirements at lower cost. And money matters, no doubt about it. But every investment has its own returns. Although we cannot directly observe all the ways that CAP quality improvement programs contribute to a culture of quality patient care in the medical laboratory, we know they drive excellence day in and day out. We can say that with confidence because we have the data to back it up and because we know what goes into them—from concept to fruition. 

Dr. Williams welcomes communication from CAP members. Write to him at president@cap.org.