|
The siemens technical application specialist (tas) was on site and performed a precision study.The precision study failed.First precision mean was 5.287 and %cv was 8.03.Second precision mean was 6.237 and %cv was 9.62.The acceptable cv is 3.6%.The tas reviewed the august 2018 quality control (qc).No bias was detected on qc.The customer service engineer (cse) was dispatched for a total service call.The cse replaced the probe wash guide, probe wash check, pinch tubing, performed sample calibration and r1 calibration.The cse performed a precision run with 5 replicates.The 30 ng/ml cv% was at 4.6 (cv% limit 5.2) and the 170 ng/ml cv% was at 2.0 (cv% limit 4.4).The customer re-calibrated afp and ran quality controls which were acceptable.The cause for the discordant afp results is unknown.It appears the issue was with one sample that reported out <2.5, then 25.9 and <2.5 ng/ml.This is likely due to a preanalytical issue with the sample itself.The customer reported the sample was slightly icteric which may indicated sample quality issue.In review of actions taken it does appear the sample was repeated after a recalibration with a fresh pack and the value went from <2.5 to 2.7.The qc was biased low for the calibration in which the <2.5 value was obtained.The customer service engineer did make some mechanical adjustments which may have attributed and has run precision.The assay and instrument is running acceptably.The instrument is performing within specifications.No further evaluation of the device is required.The ifu states in the interpretation of results section: "results of this assay should always be interpreted in conjunction with patient's medical history, clinical presentation and other findings.".
|