Abstract
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, important health and regulatory decisions relied on the SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results. Our diagnostic laboratory faced a rapid increase in the number of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, with up to 1,007 tests per day. To maintain a rapid turnaround time to support patient management and public health authorities' decisions, we moved from a case-by-case validation of RT-PCR to an automated validation and immediate transmission of the results to clinicians. To maintain high quality and to track possible aberrant results, we developed a quality-monitoring tool based on a homemade algorithm coded in R. We present the results of this quality-monitoring tool applied to 35,137 RT-PCR results corresponding to 30,198 patients. Patients tested several times led to 4,939 pairwise comparisons; 88% concordant and 12% discrepant. Among the 573 discrepancies, 428 were automatically solved by the algorithm. The most likely explanation for these 573 discrepancies was related for 44.9% of the situations to "Clinical evolution", 27.9% to "Preanalytical" problems, and 25.3% to "Stochastic". Finally, 11 discrepant results could not be explained, including 8 received from external partners for which clinical data were not available. The implemented quality-monitoring strategy allowed to: i) assist the investigation of discrepant results ii) focus the attention of medical microbiologists onto results requiring a specific expertise and iii) maintain an acceptable TAT. This work highlighted the high RT-PCR consistency for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and the importance of automated processes to handle a huge number of samples while preserving quality.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external fundings
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The data were obtained during a quality enhancement project at our institution. According to national law the performance and publishing the results of such a project can be done without asking the permission of the competent research ethics committee; exemption letter provided by the "Commission cantonale d'ethique de la recherche sur l'etre humain" of the Vaud Canton (CER-VD), Lausanne, Switzerland.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data referred to in the manuscript are available
