Laboratory accreditation: The operation of an established scheme

NAMAS, the National Measurement Accreditation Service, was formed in 1985 and has currently accredited some 1050 testing and calibration laboratories in the United Kingdom. NAMAS is managed by an Executive of 60 staff which is based at the National Physical Laboratory, one the UK's largest Government Research Establishments. Laboratories seeking accreditation are assessed by fully trained technical experts contracted by NAMAS, against the criteria set out in the NAMAS Accreditation Standard M10; the criteria contained in this document are fully consistent with the international standards for laboratory accreditation EN 45001 and ISO Guide 25. NAMAS has recently published a document which provides guidance on the interpretation of the NAMAS Accreditation Standard for analytical laboratories. Assessment involves a consultative preassessment visit which is followed by a thorough on-site assessment of a laboratory's quality system and testing activities by a team of expert assessors. Following the correction of any noncompliances found at the assessment, the laboratory receives a certificate of accreditation and a schedule which defines those tests and analyses for which the laboratory is accredited. NAMAS has negotiated a number of mutual recognition agreements with similar accreditation bodies in other countries and negotiations with other schemes are underway. The imminent approach of the European Single Market has highlighted the need for independent third party assurance of testing and calibration and this should ensure the continued growth of NAMAS and similar schemes elsewhere in Europe.     

Developments in accreditation of flexible scopes in Europe

Accreditation of testing and calibration laboratories is the most frequently used type of accreditation. European Co-operation for Accreditation (EA) as the European network of recognised national accreditation bodies covers accreditation of all types of conformity assessment bodies. In Europe, the number of accredited testing and calibration laboratories covered under the EA Multilateral Agreement is about 15,000 nowadays.     

Accreditation for United States environmental laboratories

 There is currently no national program for recognition of United States environmental laboratories. This situation should change sometime in 1998 as environmental testing laboratories should be able to apply for accreditation in the United States via a system developed by the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC). NELAC is an organization whose purpose is to establish performance standards for accrediting environmental laboratories. Laboratories to be accredited will be required to demonstrate qualifications of testing personnel, pass on-site inspections, perform satisfactorily on proficiency test samples, and meet specified quality assurance standards.     

Interlaboratory comparison for the determination of pesticide residues in Chinese cabbage

The results of and findings from an interlaboratory comparison among laboratories carrying out food testing of pesticide residues in the APEC (Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation) region are presented and discussed to show critical roles of chemical metrology infrastructure in establishing traceability of measurements and in supporting existing measurement capability in safety and quality of food trade. The study material, which was prepared and certified by Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS), was freeze-dried Chinese cabbage powder fortified with two organophosphorous pesticides (diazinon and chlorpyrifos). Among 14 participants, 12 laboratories were accredited based on ISO/IEC17025 and one laboratory was under assessment for the accreditation at the time of this study. Though all participants demonstrated very good intra-day repeatability and inter-day intermediate precision, many of them showed a large bias from the certified values. It is suggested that in addition to the accreditation system, economies are encouraged to develop appropriate chemical metrology infrastructure, which could effectively support laboratories to assure measurement traceability to SI, for which NMIs could play significant roles through their metrological services recognized in Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) of the International Committee for Weights and Measures (Comité International des Poids et Mesures, CIPM).     

The development of a National Accreditation System in South and Southern Africa

 In South African industry there is a strong appreciation of Quality Assurance. More than 1400 companies have been certified as complying with ISO 9000, and this, of course, has resulted in a strong demand for accredited calibration and test facilities. Work on the development of a national calibration service started in 1976, and the South African National Calibration Service (SANCS) was inaugurated in 1980 with 13 calibration laboratories. The early maturity of the SANCS can be judged by the fact that by 1984 it had the technical capability to establish a mutual recognition agreement with a European country. It now has a total of some 191 accredited laboratories, 139 calibration laboratories and 52 testing laboratories. In 1993, the SANCS signed mutual recognition agreements with the CNLA (Taiwan) and the European Co-operation for the Accreditation of Laboratories (EAL). In 1994 it entered the field of testing laboratory accreditation and is already experiencing a strong influence therefrom, and in 1997 it changed its name to National Laboratory Accreditation Service (NLA). In May 1995, the NLA was appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry to establish a South African National Accreditation System (SANAS). Progress with this work up to the present time has been substantial.     

The increasing demands of quality assurance in chemical testing

The chemical and microbiological testing community is going through a rather difficult period of change. Publication of ISO/IEC 17025 (General requirements for the competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories, 1999) [1] is placing additional demands on testing laboratories to ensure traceability and estimate uncertainty in their measurements. At the same time, laboratories must remain mindful of the need to provide relevant, timely and economic services to their clients. International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) and its accredited laboratories are currently focussing on establishing realistic methods for ensuring traceability to national and international standards and estimating measurement uncertainty. To this end, IANZ recognizes that it has an important role in providing as much advice and assistance as possible, not only to its accredited chemical laboratories but also to all those contemplating accreditation in New Zealand.

Accreditation of calibration laboratories to normative documents: diversity or standardization

Calibration of measuring equipment is conducted by following some normative or applicable documents such as standards, manufacturer manuals and instructions, technical orders issued by defense organizations, or scientific papers. An accreditation body provides its recognition to the calibration laboratories by evaluating their technical competence and their compliance with the quality requirements of ISO/IEC 17025. The accreditation body must have defined criteria in order to evaluate different calibration methods which should ensure that the laboratories are performing the calibration in a technically competent manner when they are fully or even only partially based on the relevant reference documents. A discussion with different points of view about choosing the criteria, as well as the Israel Laboratory Accreditation Authority (ISRAC) policy on this issue, are presented.Presented at the 2nd International Conference on Metrology – Trends and Applications in Calibration and Testing Laboratories, November 4–6, 2003, Eilat, Israel.     

The ILAC Arrangement – Part I

As of August 2001, 38 laboratory accreditation bodies of the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) have signed the multi-lateral, mutual recognition arrangement (the ”ILAC Arrangement”) to promote the acceptance of accredited test and calibration data. This Arrangement provides significant technical underpinning to international trade. Until now, there has been no international mutual recognition agreement in laboratory accreditation, which has been a hindrance for some types of international trade. The key to the Arrangement is the developing global network of accredited testing and calibration laboratories that are assessed and recognised as being competent by ILAC Arrangement signatory accreditation bodies. The signatories have, in turn, been peer-reviewed and shown to meet ILAC’s criteria for competence. Now that the ILAC Arrangement is in place, governments can take advantage of it to further develop or enhance trade agreements. The ultimate aim is increased use and acceptance by industry, as well as government, of the results from accredited laboratories, including results from laboratories in other countries. In this way, the free-trade goal of ”a product tested once and accepted everywhere” can be realised.     

The flexible scope of accreditation

The scope of accreditation for testing laboratories can inhibit, in certain cases, their quick response to customers needs, if the scope is too rigid with regard to the modification of test methods and the introduction of new ones using the same measurement principles. Document EA-2-05 published by the European Cooperation for Accreditation describes possibilities to allow flexibility in accredited laboratories. Several examples of a flexible scope are given.     

Accreditation of pathology laboratories in Finland

 The Finnish Accreditation Service (FINAS) accredits testing laboratories in all fields including medical laboratories according to European standard EN 45001 and ISO Guide 25. At the beginning of 1998, FINAS published a recommendation on how to apply general standards in histo- and cytopathology. Four pathology laboratories have been accredited to date. FINAS has not included autopsies in these accreditations. The International Academy of Pathology (IAP)-Finnish Division has recognized 21 pathology laboratories according to standards of their own. Although accreditation by FINAS is not connected to the system of the IAP-Finnish Division, the requirements are very similar in both. Less than half of the pathology laboratories in Finland participate in national quality improvement programme or have been accredited by FINAS.     

APLAC interpretation and guidance on the estimation of uncertainty of measurement in testing

The Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC) is the organization representing the community of bodies that accredit testing and calibration laboratories throughout the Asia Pacific region, including China and North America. APLAC members assess the competence of laboratories and grant them accreditation. They also provide mutual recognition of the equivalence of their accreditations, which facilitates international trade and acceptance by regulators. Harmonization of accreditation requirements is therefore vital to maintaining Mutual Recognition Arrangements. APLAC establishes management and technical criteria for accreditation and publishes guidance documents for accreditation bodies and laboratories.     

EAL interlaboratory comparison Wa1 – Testing of potable water

 The accreditation of laboratories has emphasized the use of interlaboratory comparisons as a tool to monitor the comparability and accuracy of results laboratories produce. An interlaboratory comparison for water laboratories was organized among European Cooperation for Accreditation (EA) member countries; 30 laboratories, 7 of which were not accredited, from 14 European countries participated in this intercomparison. All the laboratories were chosen by the appropriate national accreditation bodies, with the instruction to select as participants those laboratories which act as national reference laboratories in this field. About 90% of the data collected was considered satisfactory after statistical treatment. Non-accredited laboratories performed as well as accredited laboratories. The laboratories were asked to take corrective action and report the corrections to the accreditation bodies. A great variation in the reported uncertainties of the results was observed. There seems to be a need to organize EA interlaboratory comparisons for national reference laboratories analysing water. It is obvious that even reference laboratories need training in how to estimate the uncertainty of results. Received: 22 July 1998 · Accepted: 21 September 1998     

ISO 15189-accredited laboratories fulfill the JCI Hospital Accreditation Standard requirements for the use of referral laboratories: report of a consensus meeting

Accreditation of healthcare services is recommended to ensure operation according to the highest quality standards. Various initiatives, such as legislation or accreditation by ISO or JCI, may be active to support and improve quality. The growing trend toward JCI hospital accreditation raised the concern of redundancy between JCI requirements for the use of referral laboratories and the ISO 15189 accreditation for medical laboratories. This would result in needless administrative efforts for hospital laboratories to collect and maintain required documentation, as the JCI quality requirements would be guaranteed given that the referral laboratory is ISO 15189 accredited for those examinations. A consensus meeting was organized by the Working Group for Hospital Accreditation of the Belgian Zorgnet-Icuro network, the University Hospitals of Leuven and the Red Cross to discuss the avoidance of any redundancy between both standards and to issue best practice guidelines for referral laboratories. It was concluded that JCI measurable elements for referral laboratories are covered by the ISO 15189 accreditation scope. The article substantiates the consensus that JCI and ISO quality requirements are harmonized and that accurate knowledge and interpretation of prevailing quality standards are essential to avoid redundancy in quality measures.     

Accreditation of proficiency-testing schemes in The Netherlands

Proficiency testing by laboratories, national accreditation bodies, and other third parties is becoming more and more considered as a standard and integral part of the quality control system. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that the quality of the provided proficiency-testing (PT) service is outstanding. If PT-schemes are set up in order to help laboratories monitor and improve their quality, PT-schemes need not only be of high quality themselves, but the organizer also needs to be able to demonstrate this. In The Netherlands formal accreditation of the organization of proficiency testing schemes is used as a tool to guarantee high quality schemes and also to enable organizers to demonstrate their competence. Since 1996, the Dutch Council for Accreditation (RvA) has used the ISO-Guide 43–1 to assess PT-organizers in The Netherlands. From January 2000, the ISO-guide 43–1 was replaced by the ILAC G13 document for assessing organizers. Up till now, four institutes have been accredited by the RvA for the organization of PT-schemes.     

Reference materials in the Russian system of accreditation of analytical laboratories

 This article is devoted to the role of reference materials (RMs) in chemical analysis and their main applications in analytical laboratories. The principal requirements of the RMs used in accredited laboratories in the Russian Analytical Laboratories Accreditation System (SAAL) are presented. These include the basic regulatory and metrological requirements of RMs. Finally, a review of the provision of RMs used for the analytical control of various test objects is presented. Received: 9 August 1998 / Accepted: 9 November 1998     

Accreditation and authorization in environmental analysis

 Since 1989 testing laboratories in Europe have had the possibility to confirm their competence in carrying out certain testing procedures by means of accreditation. Over the years an independent European Accreditation system has been developed, which many member states of the European Union have joined. The existing accreditation organizations joined to form the unified organization EA (European Cooperation for Accreditation) in 1997. Members of this organization are, inter alia, one representative of the accreditation authorities of each of the member states. The German accreditation system is different to the European system in that it is split. Here, we differentiate between the sector established by law and that which is not. Both sectors, however, pursue the same goal. Because of this double certification of competence and the resulting multiple reviews, German testing laboratories face a considerably greater load in comparison to their European colleagues. Several authorities are already working on the removal of this split accreditation system. The efforts must, however, be concentrated and brought into line. Efforts by the DAP and DACH for flexible accreditation and the creation of a standardized registration authority for testing laboratories in the field of workplace measures are examples of how the German accreditation system could develop in the future.     

Current best practice for traceability in testing laboratories,when certified reference materials are unavailable

Since the implementation of ISO/IEC 17025 in 2002, all accredited laboratories (at the least) need to establish traceability in all their tests and calibration methods. Traceabilty, though well understood in the calibration field (through an unbroken chain of comparisons to the International System of Units —SI), is less straight forward and not so well understood in the testing laboratories. Traceability in analytical and biological testing is found through the use of reference materials, and the validated steps of a test method. This article describes the possibilities to comply with the traceability requirement of ISO/IEC 17025 in testing laboratories , when certified reference materials are unavailable.Presented at the Second International Conference on Metrology—Trends and Applications in Calibration and Testing Laboratories, 4–6 November, 2003, Eilat, Israel     

实验室认可基础、评审方法与发展趋势

从什么是实验室认可和中国实验室国家认可委员会、实验室评审认可依据和基本要求、实验室认可过程、现场评审技巧和国内外发展趋势五个方面对实验室认可作了介绍,可为我国实验室逐步实现与国际接轨的规范化管理提供借鉴。     

Metrological traceability in laboratory medicine

 The establishment of a reference examination system necessary for metrological traceability of the many types of sophisticated examination result in laboratory medicine is a daunting task, which has been made mandatory by the EU Directive on in vitro diagnostic medical devices and the requirements for accreditation. Following a definition of examinand and allowed examination uncertainty, a dedicated calibration hierarchy is established from stated reference through alternating reference examination procedures and calibrators providing a traceability chain from examination result to the reference, often a definition of a measurement unit. The various types of possible calibration hierarchy are outlined in EN ISO Standards. Recent efforts by national and international stakeholders to establish a global reference examination system have led to the creation of a Joint Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine with the International Committee for Weights and Measures, International Bureau of Weights and Measures, International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation, and World Health Organization as the principal promoters. This structure will identify reference procedures, reference materials, and reference laboratories, and seek support for further prioritised and coordinated development of the system. Received: 1 August 2002 Accepted: 22 November 2002 Based on a lecture at an IUPAC Seminar, EC JRC Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements, Geel, BE, 2001–12–18 Correspondence to R. Dybkaer     

Accreditation in the United Kingdom: responding to needs or 'changing the goalposts'?

 The requirements for establishing the competence of organisations involved in testing, calibration, certification and inspection, and the criteria for their assessment and accreditation are specified in international guides and European standards. As these guides and standards are intended for use by a range of organisations and accreditation bodies, operating in different disciplines, they are written in general terms in order to be widely applicable. It follows that some interpretation of the requirements is needed in order to address the different ways in which both organisations and accreditation bodies operate. This may be seen by accredited organisations as providing an opportunity for accreditation bodies to 'change the goalposts'; the needs of these organisations and of their clients must be accommodated as far as possible, without diminishing the value of, or undermining confidence in, accreditation. The United Kingdom Accreditation Service has been listening to its customers, reviewing its activities and is offering a more flexible pragmatic approach to assessment and accreditation; some of the new developments are described.