Comparative analysis of laboratory accreditation in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Slovakia and Serbia and Montenegro

The development of an internationally recognized laboratory accreditation process, accompanied by a mutual recognition agreement (MRA), is an issue of great interest in Central and Eastern European countries. This paper presents a comparative analysis of laboratory accreditation in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Slovakia and Serbia and Montenegro. The basic analysis technique was preliminary laboratory accreditation assessment (PLAA). The analysis data were obtained via a questionnaire issued from January to June 2004, with the participation of accreditation bodies. Results from the study are presented in four sections: accreditation body standards, accreditation body organization, assessors and proficiency testing, and inter-laboratory comparisons. Research results for the countries were accessed using PLAA techniques and conformity/non conformity statements. The analysis verified that PLAA can provide low cost, rapid assessment of the key influencing factors in laboratory accreditation bodies.     

Accreditation of PT providers – is it worth the money?

This topic is being presented from two perspectives, namely the views of an accreditation body and those of an accredited provider of external quality assessment schemes. The first perspective, from an accreditation body, is based on the experience of Australia's national laboratory accreditation body (NATA), which has accredited fourteen proficiency testing (PT) providers and is currently processing an application from another. The second perspective is based on the experience of EQUALIS, the national quality assurance organisation for laboratory medicine in Sweden, which was granted accreditation in 2002.Presented at 5^th Eurachem Workshop on Proficiency testing in analytical chemistry, microbiology and laboratory medicine, Portorož (Slovenia) 25–27 Sept 2005     

Surveys on the accreditation of providers of proficiency testing and external quality assessment schemes

Two surveys among providers of proficiency testing (PT) and external quality assessment (EQA) schemes were carried out during 2004 and 2005. The main objectives were to explore the current status of accreditation/certification and collect the providers’ views. Information based on the response from 160 providers in 32 countries reveals a strong tendency towards accreditation of PT/EQA. It is shown that this type of accreditation is based on several combinations of normative documents, hence illustrating a lack of harmonisation of national accreditation bodies. The surveys also show that schemes are operated under considerably different conditions and that providers’ competence may or may not be underpinned by other certification and/or accreditation. This paper elaborates on a number of issues related to PT/EQA accreditation, including customers’ views, normative documents, providers’ experience from the accreditation process, views expressed by international organisations, and effects of accreditation on participation fees, quality and availability.     

Pathology laboratory accreditation: the Australian experience

 The National Associating of Testing Authorities, Australia (NATA) is a laboratory accreditation company that has been involved in the accreditation of pathology laboratories since 1982. This role is carried out in conjunction with the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA). The accreditation process is known as the NATA/RCPA scheme. The NATA/RCPA accreditation scheme originated from the desire to raise professionalstandards in pathology. The scheme aimed to achieve this through a peer review process in which education and voluntary participation were stressed. In 1986, the Australian Federal Government adopted the scheme as its measure of the competence of testing by pathology laboratories seeking payment from the Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health reimbursement scheme, Medicare. This meant that NATA/RCPA accreditation became mandatory for such laboratories. The benefits of peer review as a means for establishing professional competence and the challenges a mandatory accreditation program poses to such a scheme will be discussed. Received: 6 May 1996 Accepted: 29 May 1996     

How to approach membership of IAF/ILAC Arrangements: the peer evaluation system of IAF and ILAC for single accreditation bodies

Peer evaluation is used by the international accreditation organisations IAF and ILAC as a tool to harmonise the results of accreditation of conformity assessment bodies and as a control mechanism to ensure constantly competent services according to harmonized standards. Upon positive evaluation outcome, the accreditation body may join an Arrangement (MLA/MRA) between accreditation bodies, confirming systematic reliability and competence to the market. The objective of these Arrangements is that they will cover all accreditation bodies in all countries in the world, thus eliminating the need for suppliers of products or services to be certified in each country where they sell their products or services. This article is to aid single accreditation bodies wishing to sign these Arrangements in the future, and, furthermore, to communicate the procedure and the relevance of evaluation to the public in order to build up confidence in such Arrangements.     

Development of laboratory accreditation in the United States

 Laboratory accreditation in the United States is an old profession. Users and regulators have, it seems, been concerned about the quality of test data they obtain from laboratories for well over half a century. These users have developed many different systems to meet their needs. As a result, there is much duplication of effort and overlapping in accreditation requirements and many laboratories have to maintain current accreditation from a number of organizations. A number of attempts have been made over the years to reduce this duplication, but it still remains. In the meantime, rapid progress has been made internationally to recognize laboratory accreditation systems in different countries. This paper describes this situation and speculates on the future, considering the international thrust to simplify and consolidate conformity assessment procedures. Received: 26 May 1998 · Accepted: 6 June 1998     

Accreditation of types of tests

 DACH, the German accreditation body of chemistry, which was founded in 1992, has introduced a new model for the flexibilization of the scope of accreditation. This ensures that the accreditation of a laboratory also guarantees flexibility. Flexibilization of the scope of accreditation is of great importance, in particular if a great number of similar routine tests (standard methods) or non-routine tests are to be accredited. The main tool of flexibilization is the accreditation of types of tests. The accreditation of types of tests entitles laboratories to include additional test methods within the type of test accredited without informing the accreditation body immediately. Such information is provided at fixed surveillance intervals. The conditions for the accreditation of types of tests are described below.     

Laboratory authorization versus accreditation in transitional economies: case study of Serbia

Many CEE governments are still using various systems of laboratory authorization together with ISO/IEC 17025 laboratory accreditation. It is difficult to understand from the EU prospective, the existence of two parallel laboratory competence verification systems. The basic relations between laboratory accreditation and authorization: independence and succession have been defined. The case study of testing laboratory accreditation versus authorization in Serbia, has been presented and discussed. Relevant requests and procedures for water quality, food and air quality testing laboratory authorization were analysed in detail. Comparative analyses of accreditation and authorization have established: (i) independent relations, (ii) relevant regulation is in collision and barely legal, (iii) authorization is (technically) on the far lower level than accreditation is, and (iv) authorization requests cause high space and personnel costs. It has been concluded that it is not adequate to perform two policies at the same time: one EU oriented—laboratory accreditation, and one non-EU oriented—laboratory authorization. The policy proposal is that all CEE countries should abandon existing laboratory authorization procedures and replace them by accreditation. Proposed goal could be reached in rather a short transition process of 2–3 years.     

Accreditation of reference material producers: an Australian perspective

The National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia has operated an accreditation program for reference material producers since 1997 with accreditation now being offered to ISO Guide 34 (2000). This paper discusses the benefits and disadvantages to both the producers and the users of reference materials (testing laboratories) and their clients of a formal system of third-party accreditation of reference material producers. The merits of using ISO Guide 34 (2000) rather than ISO/IEC 17025 as the core standard in the accreditation process are discussed.     

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.     

Can single-operator laboratories comply with all of the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2005?

ISO/IEC 17025:2005 states that its requirements are “applicable to all laboratories regardless of the number of personnel” and would therefore include single-operator laboratories. However, there are reservations as to whether these laboratories can comply with all of the requirements without jeopardizing independence of judgement and impartiality. Similarly, there are some requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2005 including staff supervision, internal communication processes and appointment of deputies that are considered unlikely to apply to a single-operator laboratory. The ISO/IEC 17025:2005 is widely used as the international standard of quality assurance by which accreditation bodies assess the competency of testing and calibration laboratories. There does, however, appear to exist, disagreement amongst accreditation experts when considering single-operator laboratories. Some accreditation bodies accredit single-operator laboratories, whilst others require additional human resources prior to granting accreditation. This discrepancy leads to unfair competition amongst laboratories as a single-operator laboratory by definition needs less resources (both human and financial) to achieve and maintain accreditation, compared with a laboratory where additional human resources need to be sought prior to and in order to maintain accreditation. The ISO/IEC 17025:2005 is in the process of being revised, and this is an opportune moment to address the issues aforementioned with the aim of removing ambiguity and enhancing clarity. In addition, the hope is to assist the accreditation bodies themselves to adopt a consensus approach when granting accreditation towards single-operator laboratories.     

Accreditation of reference material producers: Let's get it right!

The accreditation of testing and calibration laboratories to ISO/IEC 17025 is increasingly calling for the accreditation of reference material (RM) producers. Two international guides, ISO Guide 34 (2000) " General requirements for the competence of reference material producers" issued by the ISO Committee on Reference Materials and ILAC-G 12 " Guidelines for the requirements for the competence of reference material producers" issued by the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), are already in use for this purpose. Recently however initiatives have been launched to accredit RM producers to ISO 17025 as calibration laboratories and it has been suggested that a combination of ISO/IEC 17025 " General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories" and ISO Guide 34 may be the best option. This publication is an expression of the position of the ISO Committee on Reference Materials (ISO/REMCO) on the standards and guides currently in use in the accreditation of RM producers. The paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of these standards and guides from the perspective of benefit to RM producers and RM users. In conclusion, the use of ISO Guide 34 alone or in combination with ILAC-G 12 is the preferred system for the accreditation of RM producers. Therefore ISO/REMCO strongly encourages all accreditation bodies to adopt ISO Guide 34.     

Setting a precedent in international accreditation

 The accreditation procedure that the Department of Laboratory Sciences, CHPPM-Europe underwent is described. The laboratory obtained ISO/IEC 25 accreditation through the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) and the Deutsches Akkreditierungssystem Prüfwesen (DAP) as well as EN 45001 from DAP following the A2LA and DAP joint inspection. The accreditation process and the importance of obtaining national and international accreditation are discussed. Received: 30 May 1997 · Accepted: 16 June 1997     

Do we need to accredit proficiency testing schemes?

 Proficiency testing (PT) is being increasingly used as an important quality assurance tool for laboratories. The subject of quality of the providers of PT schemes has been discussed increasingly in recent years. Some countries have implemented systems for the accreditation of PT schemes. This paper looks at the background to the accreditation of PT schemes, the likely mechanisms which could be employed for accreditation, and some of the practical aspects.     

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.     

Towards accreditation of clinical biochemistry in the public sector on the island of Mauritius

Medical laboratories of the public sector as well as of the private sector on the island of Mauritius are preparing for accreditation. The clinical laboratory of the Central Health laboratory of the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life has undergone a pre-assessment by experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) through the aegis of a project targeted to members of the Africa Region. Several shortcomings were identified and respective corrective actions were recommended for implementation within a given time frame. In addition to ensuring the competence of the laboratory, accreditation has various positive aspects such as an increased awareness of the staff to quality and better training opportunities. The pre-assessment exercise has provided a gap analysis, which is an important aspect in the preparation towards accreditation.     

Accreditation to ISO 17025:2005 for the Radioactivity Metrology Group of the UK’s National Physical Laboratory

In the mid 1990s, the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) took the decision to seek external accreditation to the then UK national accreditation standard (M10, M10 supplement and M11) through the NPL’s National Measurement Accreditation Service (NAMAS). This paper details the reasoning behind that initial decision and, in particular, how this impinged on the day-to-day activities of the NPL’s Radioactivity Metrology Group (RMG). In the intervening decade, the accreditation standard has changed considerably; accreditation is now to the international standards ISO 9001:2000 (Quality Management Systems: Requirements) and ISO 17025:2005 (General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories); accreditation is now carried out by a wholly separate successor organization to NAMAS, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). To meet the new accreditation requirements the RMG: realigned it’s scope of work; streamlined and consolidated written procedures, references and appendices; centralized the collection of written procedures, and clarified the document identification system. Future developments will include efforts for RMG accreditation for conducting proficiency tests and providing reference materials.     

NATA: 50 years experience with accreditation

 Laboratory accreditation is becoming increasingly accepted around the world as a means of identifying technically competent laboratories. It is also being used as a mechanism for the acceptance of test data both nationally and internationally. The concept and mechanisms of accreditation have been developed over the past 50 years. The first national laboratory accreditation system appeared in Australia in 1947. This organisation, known as the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA), has since taken a leading role in developing accreditation practices that are now used world-wide in evaluating testing, measurement and calibration laboratories. This paper examines the development of the world's first and largest laboratory accreditation system, and looks at the difficulties and triumphs in gaining acceptance and recognition by government and industry of the benefits of laboratory accreditation. Received: 24 June 1996 Accepted: 25 June 1996     

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。