The performance of delta check methods

Clinical Chemistry (Impact Factor: 7.91). 01/1980; 25(12):2034-7.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The percentage of mislabeled specimens detected (true-positive rate) and the percentage of correctly labeled specimens misidentified (false-positive rate) were computed for three previously proposed delta check methods and two linear discriminant functions. The true-positive rate was computed from a set of pairs of specimens, each having one member replaced by a member from another pair chosen at random. The relationship between true-positive and false-positive rates was similar among the delta check methods tested, indicating equal performance for all of them over the range of false-positive rate of interest. At a practical false-positive operating rate of about 5%, delta check methods detect only about 50% of mislabeled specimens; even if the actual mislabeling rate is moderate (e.g., 1%), only abot 10% of specimens flagged a by a delta check will actually have been mislabeled.

15 Reads
  • Source
    • "short sample, possible bubbles, or clot), interference indices (e.g. hemolysis, icterus, and lipemia),[7] reference ranges, analytical measurement range (AMR), critical values, and delta checks (comparison of current value to previous values, if available, from the same patient).[8910111213] Rules may also define potentially absurd (physiologically improbable) values for some analytes and additionally may control automated dilutions and conditions for repeat analysis of specimens. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Autoverification is a process of using computer-based rules to verify clinical laboratory test results without manual intervention. To date, there is little published data on the use of autoverification over the course of years in a clinical laboratory. We describe the evolution and application of autoverification in an academic medical center clinical chemistry core laboratory. Subjects and Methods: At the institution of the study, autoverification developed from rudimentary rules in the laboratory information system (LIS) to extensive and sophisticated rules mostly in middleware software. Rules incorporated decisions based on instrument error flags, interference indices, analytical measurement ranges (AMRs), delta checks, dilution protocols, results suggestive of compromised or contaminated specimens, and ‘absurd’ (physiologically improbable) values. Results: The autoverification rate for tests performed in the core clinical chemistry laboratory has increased over the course of 13 years from 40% to the current overall rate of 99.5%. A high percentage of critical values now autoverify. The highest rates of autoverification occurred with the most frequently ordered tests such as the basic metabolic panel (sodium, potassium, chloride, carbon dioxide, creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, calcium, glucose; 99.6%), albumin (99.8%), and alanine aminotransferase (99.7%). The lowest rates of autoverification occurred with some therapeutic drug levels (gentamicin, lithium, and methotrexate) and with serum free light chains (kappa/lambda), mostly due to need for offline dilution and manual filing of results. Rules also caught very rare occurrences such as plasma albumin exceeding total protein (usually indicative of an error such as short sample or bubble that evaded detection) and marked discrepancy between total bilirubin and the spectrophotometric icteric index (usually due to interference of the bilirubin assay by immunoglobulin (Ig) M monoclonal gammopathy). Conclusions: Our results suggest that a high rate of autoverification is possible with modern clinical chemistry analyzers. The ability to autoverify a high percentage of results increases productivity and allows clinical laboratory staff to focus attention on the small number of specimens and results that require manual review and investigation.
    03/2014; 5(1):13. DOI:10.4103/2153-3539.129450
  • Source
    • "Delta check is a quality control method that compares present and previous test results of patients and detects whether the difference between the two results exceeds pre-defined criteria. If the difference is smaller than the pre-defined criteria, the result is automatically reported; however, if the difference exceeds the pre-defined criteria, the result is transacted only after manual confirmation by laboratory personnel [1-4]. Delta check methods ensure the detection of pre-analytical errors, clerical errors, and random errors that cannot be detected using commonly used quality control methods, thereby improving the reliability of clinical tests [5-8]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many laboratories use 4 delta check methods: delta difference, delta percent change, rate difference, and rate percent change. However, guidelines regarding decision criteria for selecting delta check methods have not yet been provided. We present new decision criteria for selecting delta check methods for each clinical chemistry test item. We collected 811,920 and 669,750 paired (present and previous) test results for 27 clinical chemistry test items from inpatients and outpatients, respectively. We devised new decision criteria for the selection of delta check methods based on the ratio of the delta difference to the width of the reference range (DD/RR). Delta check methods based on these criteria were compared with those based on the CV% of the absolute delta difference (ADD) as well as those reported in 2 previous studies. The delta check methods suggested by new decision criteria based on the DD/RR ratio corresponded well with those based on the CV% of the ADD except for only 2 items each in inpatients and outpatients. Delta check methods based on the DD/RR ratio also corresponded with those suggested in the 2 previous studies, except for 1 and 7 items in inpatients and outpatients, respectively. The DD/RR method appears to yield more feasible and intuitive selection criteria and can easily explain changes in the results by reflecting both the biological variation of the test item and the clinical characteristics of patients in each laboratory. We suggest this as a measure to determine delta check methods.
    Annals of Laboratory Medicine 09/2012; 32(5):345-54. DOI:10.3343/alm.2012.32.5.345 · 1.48 Impact Factor
    • "Table 2 shows that as the rate of mix-ups drops below 1 in 1000 the associated positive predictive value of even the best performing delta check becomes negligible. A positive predictive value of 58% with a 1% specimen mix-up rate is comparable to the positive predictive value of 50% estimated in an older study also using a 1% mix-up rate.[8] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Delta checks use two specimen test results taken in succession in order to detect test result changes greater than expected physiological variation. One of the most common and serious errors detected by delta checks is specimen mix-up errors. The positive and negative predictive values of delta checks for detecting specimen mix-up errors, however, are largely unknown. We addressed this question by first constructing a stochastic dynamic model using repeat test values for five analytes from approximately 8000 inpatients in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The analytes examined were sodium, potassium, chloride, bicarbonate, and creatinine. The model simulated specimen mix-up errors by randomly switching a set number of pairs of second test results. Sensitivities and specificities were then calculated for each analyte for six combinations of delta check equations and cut-off values from the published literature. Delta check specificities obtained from this model ranged from 50% to 99%; however the sensitivities were generally below 20% with the exception of creatinine for which the best performing delta check had a sensitivity of 82.8%. Within a plausible incidence range of specimen mix-ups the positive predictive values of even the best performing delta check equation and analyte became negligible. This finding casts doubt on the ongoing clinical utility of delta checks in the setting of low rates of specimen mix-ups.
    02/2012; 3:5. DOI:10.4103/2153-3539.93402
Show more


15 Reads
Available from