Results from 15 years of quality surveillance for a National Indigenous Point-of-Care Testing Program for diabetes
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION Diabetes is a major health problem for Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Point-of-care testing for haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) has been the cornerstone of a long-standing program (QAAMS) to manage glycaemic control in Indigenous people with diabetes and recently, to diagnose diabetes. METHODS The QAAMS quality management framework includes monthly testing of quality control (QC) and external quality assurance (EQA) samples. Key performance indicators of quality include imprecision (coefficient of variation [CV%]) and percentage acceptable results. This paper reports on the past 15years of quality testing in QAAMS and examines the performance of HbA1c POC testing at the 6.5% cut-off recommended for diagnosis. RESULTS The total number of HbA1c EQA results submitted from 2002 to 2016 was 29,093. The median imprecision for EQA testing by QAAMS device operators averaged 2.81% (SD 0.50; range 2.2 to 3.9%) from 2002 to 2016 and 2.44% (SD 0.22; range 2.2 to 2.9%) from 2009 to 2016. No significant difference was observed between the median imprecision achieved in QAAMS and by Australasian laboratories from 2002 to 2016 (p=0.05; two-tailed paired t-test) and from 2009 to 2016 (p=0.17; two-tailed paired t-test). For QC testing from 2009 to 2016, imprecision averaged 2.5% and 3.0% for the two levels of QC tested. Percentage acceptable results averaged 90% for QA testing from 2002 to 2016 and 96% for QC testing from 2009 to 2016. The DCA Vantage was able…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Deviations near key clinical thresholds, such as 6.5% for diagnosis or 7.0-8.0% for treatment decisions, may result in misclassification and inappropriate therapeutic interventions.
“Notably, deviations near key clinical thresholds, such as 6.5% for diagnosis or 7.0-8.0% for treatment decisions, may result in misclassification and inappropriate therapeutic interventions (9,10).”
From Comparison of point‑of‑care HbA1c devices with laboratory HPLC methods: A systematic review and meta‑analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [9]
Cites
Lenters-Westra, E., & Slingerland, R. J. (2010) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2009.130641 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wei, Y., Gu, M., Ren, Y., & Hu, Z. (2026) · Biomedical Reports · doi:10.3892/br.2026.2120 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Notably, deviations near key clinical thresholds, such as 6.5% for diagnosis or 7.0‑8.0% for treatment decisions, may result in misclassification and inappropriate therapeutic interventions (9,10).”
Influential
- Authors
- Shephard, M., Shephard, A., McAteer, B., Regnier, T., & Barancek, K.
- Affiliations
- Flinders University (AU)
- Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Shephard, Anne
- Venue
- Clinical Biochemistry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-12
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 1159-1163
- ISSN
- 0009-9120 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2736818726
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 1.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Clinical Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Australian Government
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Indigenous Health and Education
- Keywords
- point-of-care testing, HbA1c, diabetes diagnosis, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, quality assurance, external quality assessment, glycemic control, imprecision, coefficient of variation, Indigenous health
- MeSH terms
- Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Quality of Health Care, Point-of-Care Systems
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review