Recommendations for the integration of standardized quality indicators for glucose point-of-care testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Quality indicator (QI) monitoring is essential to quality assurance for point of care testing (POCT). QI standardization is needed in the POCT field to provide clear guidance to hospitals and produce National and International benchmarks. A central aim was to standardize POCT QIs with existing QIs of the MQI program recommended by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) for central laboratory testing for integration in Comparison programs. METHODS: Process mapping and risk assessment of the POC glucose testing process were used to establish potential QI. Group consensus was used to rank each potential QI based on the ability to retrieve data for the specific QI. Higher scores were attributed to QI where data could be retrieved electronically and automatically. The highest scoring QI were chosen for follow-up. Members of the working group (authors) were asked to submit data from their own institutions for each QI to evaluate the feasibility of monitoring each QI and to develop preliminary benchmarks. RESULTS: Five QI recommendations are provided for glucose POCT, including: positive patient identification, operator training, internal quality control monitoring, external quality assessment and critical results follow-up. Preliminary QI data are presented along with implementation strategies and challenges associated with each recommended QI. CONCLUSIONS: This study builds upon previous work by the Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists in developing a process to establish QIs for POCT based on process mapping and risk assessment. The recommended QIs are applicable to most other types of POCT, in addition to glucose testing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.155 | 0.277 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".