CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROFICIENCY TESTING
Interlaboratory comparisons are widely used for a number of purposes and their use is increasing internationally. Typical purposes for interlaboratory comparisons include:
a. Evaluation of the performance of laboratories for specific tests or measurements and monitoring laboratories continuing performance;
b. Identification of problems in laboratories and initiation of actions for improvement which, for example, may be related to inadequate test or measurement procedure, effectiveness of staff training and supervision, or calibration of equipment;
c. Establishment of the effectiveness and comparability of test or measurement methods;
d. Provision of additional confidence to laboratory customers;
e. Identification of interlaboratory differences;
f. Education of participating laboratories based on the outcomes of such comparisons;
g. Validation of uncertainty claims;
h. Evaluation of the performance characteristics of a method – often describe as collaborative trials;
i. Assignment of values to reference materials and assessment of their suitability for use in specific test or measurement procedures; and
j. Support for statements of the equivalence of measurements of National Metrology Institutes through “key comparisons” and supplementary comparisons conducted on behalf of the International Bureau of Weight and Measurement (BIPM) and associated regional metrology organizations.
Proficiency Testing involves the use of interlaboratory comparisons for the determination of laboratory performance, as listed in (a) to (g) above. Proficiency Testing does not usually address (h) (i) and (j) because laboratory competence is assumed in these applications, but these applications can be used to provide independent demonstrations of laboratory competence. The requirements of this International Standard can be applied to many of the technical planning and operational activities for (h), (i) and (j).
The need for ongoing confidence in laboratory performance is not only essential for laboratories and their customers but also for other interested parties, such as regulators, laboratory accreditation bodies and other organizations that specify requirements for laboratories. ISO/IEC 17011 requires accreditation bodies to take account of laboratories participation and performance in proficiency testing. There is a growing need for proficiency testing for other conformity assessment activities, such as inspection or product certification. Most of the requirements in this International Standard apply to those evolving areas, especially regarding management, planning and design, personnel, assuring quality, confidentiality, and other aspects, as appropriate.
The International Standard has been prepared to provide a consistent basis for all interested parties to determine the competence of organizations that provide proficiency testing. In doing so it replaces both parts of ISO/IEC Guide 43:1997. ISO/IEC Guide 43 included not only guidance on development and operation of proficiency testing and selection and use of proficiency testing. This International Standard has preserved and updated the principles for the operation of proficiency testing described in ISO/IEC Guide 43 and has retained in Annexes A to C information on typical types of proficiency testing schemes, guidance on appropriate statistical methods, selection and use of proficiency testing schemes by laboratories, accreditation bodies, regulatory bodies and other interested parties.
1.
SCOPE |
|||
This
International Standard specifies general requirements for the competence of
providers of proficiency testing schemes and for the development and
operation of proficiency testing schemes. These requirements are intended to
be general for all types of proficiency testing schemes, and they can be used
as a basis for specific technical requirements for fields of application. |
|||
2.
NORMATIVE
REFERENCE |
|||
The
following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this
document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated
references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any
amendments) applies. |
|||
ISO/IEC
17000:2004, Conformity assessment – Vocabulary and General Principles ISO/IEC
Guide 99:2007, International vocabulary of metrology – Basic and General
concepts and associated terms (VIM) |
|||
3.
TERMS AND
DEFINITIONS |
|||
For
the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in ISO/IEC
1700:2004, ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007 and the following apply, |
|||
3.1 |
Assigned
Value
– value attributed to a particular property of a proficiency test item. |
||
3.2 |
Coordinator – one or more
individuals with responsibility for organizing and managing all of the
activities involved in the operation of a proficiency testing scheme. |
||
3.3 |
Customer –
organization or individual for which a proficiency testing scheme is provided
through a contractual arrangement. |
||
3.4 |
Interlaboratory
Comparison
– organization, performance and evaluation of measurement or tests on the
same or similar items by two or more laboratories in accordance with
predetermined conditions |
||
3.5 |
Outlier – observation
in a set of data that appears to be inconsistent with the remainder of that
set (Note: An outlier can originate from a different population or be the
result of an incorrect recording or other gross error.) |
||
3.6 |
Participant – laboratory,
organization or individual that receives proficiency test items and submits
results for review by the proficiency testing provider (Note: in some cases,
the participant can be an inspection body) |
||
3.7 |
Proficiency
Testing
– evaluation of participant performance against pre – established criteria by
means of interlaboratory comparisons. |
||
Note
1:
For the purposes of this International Standard, the term “proficiency
testing” is taken in its widest sense and includes, but not limited to: |
|||
a. Quantitative
Scheme
– where the objective is to quantify one or more measurement of the
proficiency test item; |
|||
b. Qualitative
Scheme
– where the objective is to identify or describe one or more characteristics
of the proficiency test item; |
|||
c. Sequential
Scheme
– where one or more proficiency test items are distributed sequentially for
testing or measurement and returned to the proficiency testing provider at
intervals; |
|||
d. Simultaneous
Scheme
– where proficiency test items are distributed for concurrent testing or
measurement within a defined time period; |
|||
e. Single
occasion exercise
– where proficiency test items are provided on a single occasion; |
|||
f. Continuous
Scheme
– where proficiency test items are provided at regular intervals; |
|||
g. Sampling – where
samples are taken for subsequent analysis; and |
|||
h. Data
transformation and interpretation – where sets of data or other
information are furnished, and the information is processed to provide an
interpretation (or other outcome). |
|||
Note
2:
Some providers of proficiency testing in the medial area use the term
“External Quality Assessment (EQA)” for their proficiency testing schemes, or
for their broader programmes, or both (see Annex A). The requirements of this
International Standard cover only those EQA activities that meet the
definition of proficiency testing. |
|||
3.8 |
Proficiency
Test Item
– sample, product, artefact, reference material, piece of equipment,
measurement standard, data set or other information used for proficiency
testing |
||
3.9 |
Proficiency
Testing Provider
– organization which takes responsibility for all tasks in the development
and operation of a proficiency testing scheme |
||
3.10 |
Proficiency
Testing Round
– single complete sequence of distribution of proficiency test items, and the
evaluation and reporting of results to the participants |
||
3.11 |
Proficiency
Testing Scheme
– proficiency testing designed and operated in one or more rounds for a
specified area of testing, measurement, calibration or inspection (Note: A
proficiency testing scheme might cover a particular type of test,
calibration, inspection or a number of tests, calibrations or inspection on
proficiency test items. |
||
3.12 |
Robust
Statistical method
– statistical method insensitive to small departures from underlying
assumptions surrounding an underlying probabilistic model. |
||
3.13 |
Standard
Deviation for Proficiency Assessment – measure of dispersion used in the
evaluation of results of proficiency testing, based on the available
information. |
||
Note
1:
The standard deviation applies only to a ratio and different scale results. |
|||
Note
2:
Not all proficiency testing schemes evaluate proficiency based on the
dispersion of results. |
|||
3.14 |
Subcontractor –
organization or individual engaged by the proficiency testing provider to
perform activities specified in this International Standard and that affect
the quality of a proficiency testing scheme (Note: The term “subcontractor”
includes what many proficiency testing providers call collaborators. |
||
3.15 |
Metrological
Traceability
– property of a measurement result whereby the result can be related to a
reference through a documented unbroken chain of calibrations, each
contributing to the measurement uncertainty. |
||
Note
1:
For this definition, a “reference” can be a definition of a measurement unit
through its practical realization, or a measurement procedure including the
measurement unit for a non–ordinal quantity, or a measurement standard. |
|||
Note
2:
Metrological traceability requires an established calibration hierarchy. |
|||
Note
3:
Specification of the reference must include the time at which this reference
was used in establishing the calibration hierarchy, along with any other
relevant metrological information about the reference, such as when the first
calibration in the calibration hierarchy was performed. |
|||
Note
4:
For measurements with more than one input quantity in the measurement model,
each of the input quantity values should itself be metrologically traceable
and the calibration hierarchy involved may form a branched structure or a
network. The effort involved in establishing metrological traceability for
each input quantity value should be commensurate with its relative
contribution to the measurement result. |
|||
Note
5:
Metrological traceability of a measurement result does not ensure that the
measurement uncertainty is adequate for a given purpose or that there is an
absence of mistakes. |
|||
Note
6:
A comparison between two measurement standards may be viewed as a calibration
if the comparison is used to check and, if necessary, correct the quantity
value and measurement uncertainty attributed to one of the measurement
standards. |
|||
Note
7:
the ILAC1 considers the elements for confirming metrological
traceability to be an unbroken metrological traceability chain to an
international measurement standard or a national measurement standard, a
documented measurement uncertainty, a documented measurement procedure,
accredited technical competence, metrological traceability to the SI, and
calibration intervals (see ILAC P – 10:2002) 1 International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation |
|||
Note
8:
The abbreviated term “traceability” is sometimes used to mean “metrological
traceability” as well as other concepts, such as “sample traceability” or
“document traceability” or “instrument traceability” or “material
traceability”, where the history (“trace”) of an item is meant. Therefore,
the full term of “metrological traceability” is preferred if there is any
risk of confusion. |
|||
3.16 |
Measurement
uncertainty
– uncertainty of measurement; non– negative parameter characterizing the
dispersion of the quantity values being attributed to a measure, based on the
information used. |
||
Note
1:
Measurement uncertainty includes components arising from systematic effects,
such as components associated with corrections and the assigned quantity
values of measurement standards, as well as the definitional uncertainty.
Sometimes estimated systematic effects are not corrected for but, instead
associated measurement uncertainty components are incorporated. |
|||
Note
2:
The parameter may be, for example, a standard deviation called standard
measurement uncertainty (or a specified multiple of it), or the half–width of
an interval, having a stated coverage probability. |
|||
Note
3:
Measurement uncertainty comprises, in general, many components. Some of these
may be evaluated by Type A evaluation of measurement uncertainty from the
statistical distribution of the quantity values from series of Type B
evaluation of measurement uncertainty, can also be characterized by standard
deviations, evaluated from probability density functions based on experience
or other information. |
|||
Note
4:
In general, for a given set of information, it is understood that the
measurement uncertainty is associated with a stated quantity value attributed
to the measurement. A modification of this value results in a modification of
the associated uncertainty. |
|||
4.
TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS |
|||
4.1 |
GENERAL |
||
|
The
development and operation of proficiency testing schemes shall be undertaken
by proficiency testing providers having competence to conduct interlaboratory
comparisons and access to expertise with the particular type of proficiency
test items. Proficiency testing providers or their subcontractors shall also
have competence in the measurement of the properties being determined. |
||
Note:
ISO/IEC 17025 or ISO 15189 can be used to demonstrate the competence of
proficiency testing provider’s laboratory, or the laboratory subcontracted to
perform tests or measurements related to the proficiency testing schemes. ISO
Guide 34 can be used to demonstrate the competence of producers of reference
materials that provide proficiency test items. |
|||
4.2 |
PERSONNEL |
||
|
4.2.1 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall have managerial and technical personnel
with necessary authority, resources and technical competence required to
perform their duties. |
|
4.2.2 |
The
proficiency testing provider’s management shall define the minimum levels of
qualifications and experience necessary for the key positions within its
organization and ensure those qualifications are met. |
||
4.2.3 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall use personnel who are neither employed by,
or under contract to it. Where contracted and additional technical and key
support personnel are used, the proficiency testing provider shall ensure
that such personnel are supervised and competent and that they work in
accordance with the management system. |
||
Note: Where technical experts are used on an ad–hoc basis or as part of an advisory or steering group (see 4.4.1.4), the existence of formal agreements though, for example, group terms of can be reference or other means, considered to satisfy these requirements. |
|||
4.2.4 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall authorize specific personnel to: |
||
a. Select
appropriate proficiency test items; |
|||
b. Plan
proficiency testing schemes; |
|||
c. Perform
particular types of sampling; |
|||
d. Operate
specific equipment; |
|||
e. Conduct
measurements to determine stability and homogeneity, as well as assigned
values and associated uncertainties of the measurements of the proficiency
test item; |
|||
f. Prepare,
handle and distribute proficiency test items; |
|||
g. Operate
the data processing system; |
|||
h. Conduct
statistical analysis; |
|||
i. Evaluate
the performance of proficiency testing participants; |
|||
j. Give
opinions and interpretations; and |
|||
k. Authorize
the issue of proficiency testing reports. |
|||
4.2.5 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall maintain up–to–date records of the
relevant authorization(s), competence, educational and professional
qualifications, training, skills, and experience of all technical personnel,
including contracted personnel. This information shall be readily available
and shall include the date on which competence to perform their assigned
tasks were assessed and confirmed. |
||
4.2.6 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall formulate the objectives with respect to
the education, training, and skill for each staff member involved with the
operation of the proficiency testing scheme. The proficiency testing provider
shall have a policy and procedures for identifying training needs and
providing training of personnel. The training programme shall be relevant to
the present and anticipated needs of the proficiency testing provider. |
||
Note: It is advisable to consider the need to retain staff periodically. Staff training policies can take account of technological change, the need to demonstrate on–going competence and aim at continual skill upgrading. |
|||
4.2.7 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall ensure that staff receive the necessary
training to ensure competent performance of measurements, operation of
equipment and any other activities which affect the quality of the
proficiency testing scheme. The effectiveness of training activities shall be
evaluated. Note:
Objective measures can be used to
assess the attainment of competence. |
||
4.3 |
EQUIPMENT,
ACCOMODATION, AND ENVIRONMENT |
||
|
4.3.1 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall ensure that there is appropriate
accommodation for the operation of the proficiency testing scheme. This
includes facilities and equipment for proficiency test item manufacturing,
handling, calibration, testing, storage and despatch, for data processing,
for communications, and for retrieval of material and records. |
|
4.3.2 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall ensure that the environmental conditions
do not compromise the proficiency testing scheme or the required quality of
operations. Particular care shall be taken when operations are undertaken at
site away from the proficiency testing provider’s permanent facilities or are
undertaken by subcontractors. The technical requirements for accommodation
and environmental conditions that can affect the proficiency testing shall be
documented. |
||
4.3.3 |
Assess
to and use of areas affecting the quality of proficiency testing schemes
shall be controlled. The proficiency testing provider shall determine the
extent of control based on its circumstances. |
||
4.3.4 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall identify environmental conditions that can
significantly influence the quality of the proficiency test items and any
testing and calibration carried out, including conditions that are required
by relevant specifications and measurement procedures. The proficiency
testing provider shall control and monitor these conditions and shall record
all relevant monitoring activities. Relevant proficiency testing activities
shall be stopped when the environmental conditions jeopardize the quality or
the operations of the proficiency testing scheme. |
||
Note: Conditions can include, for example, biological sterility, dust, electromagnetic disturbances, radiation, humidity, electrical supply, temperature, and sound and vibration levels, as appropriate to the technical activities concerned. |
|||
4.3.5 |
There
shall be effective separation between neighbouring areas in which there are
incompatible activities. Action shall be taken to prevent
cross–contamination. |
||
4.3.6 |
Proficiency
testing providers shall ensure that performance characteristics of laboratory
methods and equipment used to confirm the content, homogeneity and stability
of proficiency testing are appropriately validated and maintained. |
||
4.4 |
DESIGN
OF PROFICIENCY TESTING SCHEMES |
||
|
4.4.1 |
Planning |
|
|
4.4.1.1 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall identify and plant those processes which
directly affect the quality of the proficiency testing scheme and shall
ensure that they are carried out in accordance with prescribed measures. |
|
Note: Stakeholders interests can be considered in
developing a plan and relevant information. |
|||
4.4.1.2 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall not subcontract the planning of the
proficiency testing scheme (see 5.5.2) |
||
Note: The proficiency testing provider can utilize advice or assistance from any advisors, experts, or steering group (See 4.4.1.4) |
|||
4.4.1.3 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall document a plan before commencement of the
proficiency testing scheme that addresses the objectives, purpose and basic
design of the proficiency testing scheme, including the following information
and, where appropriate, reasons for its selection or exclusion: |
||
a. The
name and address of the proficiency testing provider; |
|||
b. The
name, address and affiliation of the coordinator and other personnel involved
in the design and operation of the proficiency testing scheme; |
|||
c. The
activities to be subcontracted and the names and address of subcontractors
involved in the operation of the proficiency testing scheme; |
|||
d. Criteria
to be met for participation; |
|||
e. The
number and type of expected participants in the proficiency testing scheme; |
|||
f. Selection
of the measurements or characteristics of interest information on what the
participants are to identify, measure, or test for in the specific
proficiency testing round; |
|||
g. A
description of the range of values or characteristics, or both, to be expected
for the proficiency test items; |
|||
h. The
potential major sources of errors involved in the area of proficiency testing
offered; |
|||
i. Requirements
for the production, quality control, storage and distribution of proficiency
test items; |
|||
j. Reasonable
precautions to prevent collusion between participants or falsification of
results, and procedures to be employed if collusion or falsification of
results is suspected; |
|||
k. A
description of the information which is to be applied to participants and the
time schedule for the various phases of the proficiency testing scheme; |
|||
l. For
continuous proficiency testing schemes, the frequency or dates upon which
proficiency test items are to be distributed to participants, the deadlines
for the return of results by participants and, where appropriate, the dates
on which testing, or measurement is to be carried out by participants; |
|||
m. Any
information on methods or procedures which participants need to use to
prepare the test material and perform the tests or measurements; |
|||
n. Procedures
for the test or measurement methods to be used for the homogeneity and
stability testing of proficiency test items and, where applicable, to
determine their biological viability; |
|||
o. Preparation
of any standardized reporting formats to be sued by participants; |
|||
p. A
detailed description of the statistical analysis to be used; |
|||
q. The
origin, metrological traceability and measurement uncertainty of any assigned
values; |
|||
r. Criteria
for the evaluation of performance of participants; |
|||
s. A
description of the data, interim reports or information to be returned to
participants; |
|||
t. A
description of the extent to which participants results, and the conclusion
that will be based on the outcome of the proficiency testing scheme, are to
be made public; and |
|||
u. Actions to be taken in the case of lost or damaged proficiency test items. |
|||
4.4.1.4 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall have access to the necessary technical
expertise and experience in the relevant field of testing, calibration,
sampling or inspection, as well as statistics. This may be achieved, if
necessary, by establishing an advisory group (named as appropriate). |
||
4.4.1.5 |
Technical
expertise shall be used, as appropriate, to determine matter such as the
following: |
||
a. Planning
requirements as listed in 4.4.1.3; |
|||
b. Identification
and resolution of any difficulties expected in the preparation and
maintenance of homogenous proficiency test items, or in the provision of a
stable assigned value for a proficiency test item; |
|||
c. Preparation
of detailed instruction for participants; |
|||
d. Comments
on any technical difficulties or other remarks raised by participants in
previous proficiency testing rounds; |
|||
e. Provision
of advice in evaluating the performance of participants; |
|||
f. Comments
on the results and performance of participants as a whole and, where
appropriate, groups of participants or individual participants; |
|||
g. Provisions
of advice for participants (within limits of confidentiality), either
individually or within the report; |
|||
h. Responding
to feedback from participants; and |
|||
i. Planning
or participating in technical meetings with participants. |
|||
4.4.2 |
Preparation
of Proficiency Test items |
||
|
4.4.2.1 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall establish and implement procedures to
ensure that proficiency test items are prepared in accordance with the plan
described in 4.4.1 |
|
Note:
It is advisable that the proficiency testing provider give due consideration
to the preparation of sufficient number of proficiency test items, in order
to allow for the need to replace any such Proficiency Test items lost or
damaged during distribution or intended to be provided for use after the
results of the Proficiency Testing Scheme have been evaluated. Such uses can
include training aids for participants or use as a Reference Material. |
|||
4.4.2.2 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall establish and implement procedures to
ensure appropriate acquisition, collection, preparation, handling, storage
and, where required, disposal of all Proficiency Test items. The procedures
shall ensure that materials used to manufacture Proficiency Test items are obtained
in accordance with relevant regulatory and ethical requirements. |
||
4.4.2.3 |
Proficiency
Test items should match in terms of matrix, measurements, and concentrations,
as closely as practicable, the type of items or materials encountered in
routine testing or calibrations. |
||
4.4.2.4 |
In
Proficiency Testing schemes that require participants to prepare or
manipulate, or both prepare and manipulate, the Proficiency test item and
submit it to the Proficiency Testing provider, the proficiency testing
provider shall issue instructions for preparation, packaging and transport of
the proficiency test item. |
||
4.4.3 |
Homogeneity
and Stability |
||
|
4.4.3.1 |
Criteria
for suitable homogeneity and stability shall be established and shall be
based on the effect that inhomogeneity and instability will have on the
evaluation of the participant’s performance. |
|
Note 1: |
The
requirements in this subclause are intended to ensure that every participant
receives comparable proficiency test items, and that these proficiency test
items remain stable throughout the Proficiency testing. Careful planning,
manufacture and shipping are necessary to achieve this, and testing is
usually needed to confirm it. |
||
Note 2: |
In
some cases, it is not feasible for Proficiency Test items to be subjected to
homogeneity and stability testing. Such cases would include, for example,
when limited material is available to prepare proficiency testing items. |
||
Note 3: |
In
some cases, materials that are not sufficiently homogenous or stable are the
best available; in such cases, they can still be useful as Proficiency Test
items, provided that the uncertainties of the assigned values or the
evaluation of results take due account of this (see B.3.1.3 and ISO
13528:2005, Annex B) |
||
|
Note 4: |
Considerations
for homogeneity and stability are further discussed in ISO Guide 34, ISO
Guide 35 and ISO 13528 |
|
4.4.3.2 |
The
procedures for the assessment of homogeneity and stability shall be
documented and conducted, where applicable, in accordance with appropriate
statistical designs. Where possible, the proficiency testing provider shall
use a statistically random selection of a representative number of
Proficiency Test items for the whole batch of test material to assess the
homogeneity of the material. |
||
Note |
In
some cases, the use of a random stratified or systematic selection of
Proficiency test items from the whole batch is more appropriate. |
||
4.4.3.3 |
The
assessment of homogeneity shall normally be performed after the Proficiency
Test items have been packaged in the Final Form and before distribution or
participants unless, for example, stability studies indicate that they should
be stored in bulk form. |
||
Note 1: |
Homogeneity
can be demonstrated prior to packaging where no influence of packaging is
reasonably expected |
||
Note 2: |
On
some occasions, homogeneity testing cannot be carried out prior to
distribution of practical, technical, or logistical reasons. |
||
4.4.3.4 |
Proficiency
test items shall be demonstrated to be sufficiently stable to ensure that
they will not undergo any significant change throughout the conduct of the
Proficiency Testing, including storage and transport conditions. When this is
not possible, the stability shall be quantified and considered as an
additional component of the measurement uncertainty associated with the
assigned value of the Proficiency Test item, and/or taken into account in the
Evaluation criteria. |
||
4.4.3.5 |
When
Proficiency Test items form previous rounds are retained for future use, the
property values to be determined in the proficiency testing scheme shall be
confirmed by the Proficiency Testing provider prior to distribution. |
||
4.4.3.6 |
In
circumstances where homogeneity and stability testing is not feasible, the
Proficiency Testing provider shall demonstrate that the procedures used to
collect, produce, package and distribute the Proficiency Test items are
sufficient for the purpose of the Proficiency Testing. |
||
4.4.4 |
Statistical
Design |
||
|
4.4.4.1 |
Statistical
design shall be developed to meet the objectives of the scheme, based on the
nature of the data (quantitative or qualitative, including ordinal and
categorical), statistical assumptions, the nature of errors, and the expected
number of results (see B.3.2.2). |
|
Note 1 |
Statistical
design covers the process of planning, collection, analysis and reporting of
the Proficiency Testing scheme date. Statistical designs are often based on
stated objectives for the Proficiency Testing scheme, such as detection of
certain types of errors with specified power or determination of assigned
values with specified measurement uncertainty. |
||
Note 2 |
Data
analysis methods could vary from the very simple (e.g. descriptive
statistics) to the complex, using statistical models with probabilistic
assumptions or combinations of results for different Proficiency Test items. |
||
Note 3 |
In
cases where the Proficiency Testing scheme design is mandated by a
specification given by, for example, a customer, regulatory authority or
accreditation body, the statistical design and data analysis methods can be
taken directly from the specification. |
||
Note 4 |
In
the absence of reliable information needed to produce a statistical design, a
preliminary interlaboratory comparison can be used. |
||
4.4.4.2 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall document the statistical design and data
analysis methods to be used to identify the assigned value and evaluate
participant results and shall provide a description of the reasons for their
selection and assumptions upon which they are based. The Proficiency Testing
provider shall be able to demonstrate that statistical assumptions are
reasonable, and that statistical analysis are carried out in accordance with
prescribed procedures. |
||
4.4.4.3 |
In
designing a statistical analysis, the Proficiency Testing provider shall give
careful consideration to the following: |
||
a. The
accuracy (trueness and precision) as well as the measurement uncertainty
required or expected for each measurement or characteristic in the
Proficiency Testing; |
|||
b. The
minimum number of participants in the Proficiency Testing scheme needed to
meet the objectives of the statistical design; in cases where there is an
insufficient number of participants to meet these objectives or to produce
statistically meaningful analysis of results, the proficiency testing
provider shall document, and provide to participants, details of the
alternative approaches used to assess participant performance; |
|||
c. The
relevance of significant figures to the reported result, including the number
of decimal places; d. The
number of Proficiency test items to be tested or measured and the number of
repeat tests, calibrations or measurements to be conducted on each
Proficiency Test item or for each determination; |
|||
e. The
procedure used to establish the standard deviation assessment or other
evaluation criteria; |
|||
f. Procedures
to be used to identify or handle outliers, or both; |
|||
g. Where
relevant, the procedures for the evaluation of values excluded from
statistical analysis; and |
|||
h. Where
appropriate, the objectives to be met for the design and the frequency of
Proficiency Testing rounds. |
|||
4.4.5 |
Assigned
Values |
||
|
4.4.5.1 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall document the procedure for determining the
assigned values for the measurement or characteristics in a particular
Proficiency Testing scheme. This procedure shall consider the metrological
traceability and measurement uncertainty required to demonstrate that the
Proficiency testing scheme is fit for its purpose. |
|
Note |
Metrological
traceability is not always possible or appropriate |
||
4.4.5.2 |
Proficiency
testing schemes in the area of calibration shall have assigned values with
metrological traceability, including measurement uncertainty. |
||
4.4.5.3 |
Proficiency
testing schemes in the area other than calibration, the relevance, needs and
feasibility for metrological traceability and associated measurement
uncertainty of the assigned value shall be determined by taking into account
specified requirements of participants or other interested parties, or by the
design of the Proficiency Testing scheme. |
||
Note |
The
required metrological traceability chain can differ depending on the type of
Proficiency Test item, the measurement or characteristic, and the availability
of traceable calibrations and reference materials. |
||
4.4.5.4 |
When
consensus value is used as the assigned value (see Annex B), the Proficiency
Testing provider shall document the reason for that selection and shall
estimate the uncertainty of the assigned value as described in the plan for
the Proficiency Testing scheme. |
||
4.4.5.5 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall have a policy regarding the disclosure of
assigned values. The policy shall ensure that participants cannot gain
advantage from early disclosure. |
||
4.5 |
CHOICE
OF METHOD OR PROCEDURE |
||
|
4.5.1 |
Participants
shall normally be expected to use the test method, calibration, or
measurement procedure of their choice, which should be consistent with their
routine procedures. The Proficiency Testing provider may instruct
participants to use a specified method in accordance with the design of the
Proficiency Testing Scheme. |
|
4.5.2 |
Where
participants are permitted to use a method of their choice, the proficiency
testing provider shall: |
||
a. Have
a policy and follow a procedure regarding comparison of results obtained by
different test or measurement methods. |
|||
b. Be
aware of which different test or measurement methods for any measurement are
technically equivalent and take steps to assess participant’s results using
these methods accordingly. |
|||
4.6 |
OPERATION
OF PROFICIENCY TESTING SCHEMES |
||
|
4.6.1 |
Instructions
for participants |
|
|
4.6.1.1 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall give participants prior notice before
sending proficiency test items, providing the date on which the Proficiency
Test items are likely to arrive or to be dispatched, unless the design of the
Proficiency Testing Scheme makes it inappropriate to do so. |
|
4.6.1.2 |
The
Proficiency Testing Provider shall give detailed documented instructions to
all participants. Instructions to participants shall include: |
||
a. The
necessity to treat proficiency test items in the same manner as the majority
of routinely tested samples (unless there are particular requirements of the
proficiency testing scheme which require departure from this principle); |
|||
b. Details
of factors which could influence the testing or calibration of the
Proficiency Test items, e.g. the nature of the Proficiency Test items,
conditions of storage, whether the Proficiency Testing Scheme is limited to
selected test methods, and the timing of the testing or measurement; |
|||
c. Detailed
procedure for preparing or conditioning, or both preparing and conditioning,
of the proficiency test items before conducting the tests or calibrations; |
|||
d. Any
appropriate instructions on handling the Proficiency Test items, including
any safety requirements; |
|||
e. Any
specific environmental conditions for the participants to conduct tests or
calibrations, or both, and, if relevant, any requirements for the
participants to report relevant environmental conditions during the time of
the measurement; |
|||
f. Specific
and detailed instructions on the manner or recording and reporting test or
measurement results and associated uncertainties. If the instructions include
reporting of the uncertainty of the reported result or measurement, this
shall include the coverage factor and, whenever practicable, the coverage probability.
Note: This instruction usually
includers parameters such as the unites of measurement, the number of
significant figures or decimal places and reporting basis (e.g. on dry
weight, or “as received”). |
|||
g. The
latest date for the provider to receive the Proficiency Testing or
measurement results for analysis; |
|||
h. Information
on the contact details of the Proficiency Testing provider for enquiries; and
|
|||
i. Instructions
on return of the Proficiency Test items, when applicable. |
|||
4.6.2 |
Proficiency
Test items handling and storage |
||
|
4.6.2.1 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall ensure that proficiency test items are
appropriately identified and segregated and cannot become contaminated or
degraded, from the time of preparation to their distribution to participants.
|
|
4.6.2.2 |
The
Proficiency testing provider shall provide secure storage areas or stock
rooms, or both, which prevent damage or deterioration of any proficiency test
item between preparation and distribution. Appropriate procedures for
authorizing despatch to, and receipt from, such areas shall be defined. |
||
4.6.2.3 |
When
appropriate, the condition of stored or stocked proficiency test items,
chemicals and materials shall be assessed at specified intervals during their
storage life in order to detect possible deterioration. |
||
4.6.2.4 |
When
potentially hazardous Proficiency Test items, chemicals and materials are
used, facilities shall be available to ensure their safe handling,
decontamination and disposal. |
||
4.6.3 |
Packaging,
Labelling and Distribution of Proficiency Test items |
||
|
4.6.3.1 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall control packaging and labelling processes
to the extent necessary to ensure conformity with relevant national,
regional, or international safety and transport requirements. |
|
Note: The proper
distribution of Proficiency test items can present severe problems for some
types of material, e.g. those which require uninterrupted storage in cold
conditions or which should be exposed to X–rays, shock or vibration. Most
types of chemical materials would benefit from air–tight packaging to avoid
contamination by atmospheric contaminants, e.g. fuel vapours or engine
exhaust gases which can be encountered during transport. |
|||
4.6.3.2 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall specify relevant environmental conditions
for the transport of Proficiency Test items. Where relevant, the proficiency
testing provider shall monitor the pertinent environmental conditions of the
proficiency test item during transport and assess the impact of environmental
influences on the Proficiency Test item. |
||
4.6.3.3 |
In
Proficiency Testing Schemes where participants are required to transport the
Proficiency Test items to other participants, documented instructions for
this transport shall be supplied. |
||
4.6.3.4 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall ensure that labels are securely attached
to the packaging of individual Proficiency Test items and are designed to
remain legible and intact throughout the Proficiency Testing round. |
||
4.6.3.5 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall follow a procedure to enable the
confirmation of delivery of the Proficiency Test items. |
||
Note:
This could be achieved in accordance with 4.6.1.1 by asking participants to
inform the Proficiency Testing provider if Proficiency Test items have not
been received in line with the
schedule of dates provided. |
|||
4.7 |
DATA
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF PROFICIENCY TESTING SCHEME RESULTS |
||
|
4.7.1 |
Data
Analysis and Records |
|
|
4.7.1.1 |
All
data processing equipment and software shall be validated with procedures
before brought into use. Computer system maintenance shall include a back–up
process and system recovery plan. The results of such maintenance and
operational checks shall be recorded. |
|
4.7.1.2 |
Results
received from participants shall be recorded and analysed by appropriate
methods. Procedures shall be established and implemented to check the
validity of data entry, data transfer, statistical analysis and reporting. |
||
4.7.1.3 |
Data
analysis shall generate summary statistics and performance statistics, and
associated information consistent with the statistical design of the
Proficiency Testing Scheme |
||
4.7.1.4 |
The
influence of outliers on summary statistics shall be minimized using robust
statistical methods or appropriate tests to detect statistical outliers. |
||
4.7.1.5 |
The
Proficiency Testing Provider shall have documented criteria and procedures
for dealing with test results that may be inappropriate for statistical
evaluation, e.g. miscalculations, transpositions and other gross errors. |
||
4.7.1.6 |
The
Proficiency Testing Provider shall have documented criteria and procedures to
identify and manage Proficiency Test items that have been distributed and are
subsequently found to be unsuitable for Performance Evaluation, e.g. because
of inhomogeneity, instability, damage or contamination. |
||
4.7.2 |
Evaluation
of Performance |
||
|
4.7.2.1 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall use valid methods of evaluation which meet
the purpose of the Proficiency Testing Scheme. The methods shall be
documented and include a description of the basis for the evaluation. The
evaluation of performance shall not be subcontracted (see 5.5.2) |
|
4.7.2.2 |
Where
appropriate for the purpose of the Proficiency Testing Scheme, the
proficiency testing provider shall provide expert commentary on the
performance of participants with regard to the following: |
||
a. Overall
performance against prior expectations, taking measurement uncertainties into
account; |
|||
b. Variation
within and between participants, and comparisons with any previous
Proficiency Testing rounds, similar Proficiency Testing Schemes, or published
precision data; |
|||
c. Variation
between methods or procedures; |
|||
d. Possible
source of error (with reference to outliers) and suggestions for improving
performance; |
|||
e. Advice
and educational feedback to participants as part of the continual improvement
procedures of participants; |
|||
f. Situations
where unusual factors make evaluation of results and commentary on
performance impossible. |
|||
g. Any
other suggestions, recommendations, or general comments; and |
|||
h. Conclusions
|
|||
Note |
It
can be useful to provide individual summary sheets for participants
periodically during or after completion of a particular Proficiency Testing
Scheme. These can include updated summaries of performance for individual
participants over successive Proficiency Testing rounds of a continuous
Proficiency Testing Scheme. Such summaries can be further analysed and trends
highlighted, if required. |
||
4.8 |
Reports |
||
|
4.8.1 |
Proficiency
Test reports shall be clear and comprehensive and include data covering the
results of all participants, together with indication of the performance of
individual participants. The authorization of the final report shall not be
subcontracted (see 5.5.2). |
|
Note |
Where
all original data cannot be reported to participants, a summary of the
results, e.g. in tabulated or graphical form, can be supplied. |
||
4.8.2 |
Reports
shall include the following, unless it is not applicable or the Proficiency
Testing Provider has valid reasons for not doing so: |
||
a. the
name and contact details for the Proficiency Testing Provider; |
|||
b. the
name and contact details for the coordinator; |
|||
c. the
name(s), function(s), and signature(s) or equivalent identification of
person(s) authorizing the report; |
|||
d. an
indication of which activities are subcontracted by the Proficiency Testing
provider; |
|||
e. the
date of issue and status (e.g. preliminary, interim, or final) of the report;
|
|||
f. page
numbers and a clear indication of the end of the report; |
|||
g. a
statement of the extent to which results are confidential; |
|||
h. the
report number and clear identification of the Proficiency Testing Scheme; |
|||
i. a
clear description of the Proficiency Test items used, including necessary
details of the Proficiency Test item’s preparation and homogeneity and
stability assessment; |
|||
j. the
Participant’s results; |
|||
k. statistical
data and summaries including assigned values and range of acceptable results
and graphical displays; |
|||
l. procedures
used to establish any assigned value; |
|||
m. details
of the metrological traceability and measurement uncertainty of any assigned
value; |
|||
n. procedures
used to establish the standard deviation for Proficiency Assessment, or other
criteria for evaluation; |
|||
o. assigned
valued and summary statistics for test methods/procedures used by each group
of participants (if different methods are used by different groups of
participants); |
|||
p. comments
on participants’ performance by the Proficiency Testing provider and
technical advisers; |
|||
q. information
about the design and implementation of the Proficiency Testing Scheme; |
|||
r. Procedures
used to statistically analyse the data; |
|||
s. Advice
on the interpretation of the statistical analysis; and |
|||
t. Comments
or recommendations, based on the outcomes of the Proficiency Testing round |
|||
Note |
For
continuous Proficiency Testing Schemes, it can be sufficient to have simpler
reports, such that many of the elements in this clause could be excluded from
routine reports, but included in Proficiency Testing Scheme protocols or in
periodic Summary Reports that are available to participants. |
||
4.8.3 |
Reports
shall be made available to participants within planned timescales. In
Sequential Proficiency Testing Schemes, e.g. where the turn–around time may
be very long, and in schemes involving perishable materials, preliminary or
anticipated results may be provided before final results are disclosed. |
||
Note |
This
allows for early investigation of possible error. |
||
4.8.4 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall have a policy for the use of reports by individuals
and organizations. |
||
4.8.5 |
When
it is necessary to issue a new or amended report for Proficiency Testing
Scheme, this shall include the following: |
||
a. A
unique identification; |
|||
b. A
reference to the original report that it replaces or amends; and |
|||
c. A statement concerning the reason for the amendment or re–issue. |
|||
4.9 |
Communication
with participants |
||
|
4.9.1 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall make detailed information available about
the Proficiency Testing Scheme. This shall include: a. Relevant
details of the scope of the Proficiency Testing Scheme; b. Any
fees for participation; c. Documented
eligibility criteria for participation; d. Confidentiality
arrangement; and e. Details
of how to apply |
|
4.9.2 |
Participants
shall be advised promptly by the Proficiency Testing Provider of any changes
in Proficiency Testing Scheme design or operation. |
||
4.9.3 |
There
shall be documented procedures for enabling participants to appeal against
the evaluation of their performance in a Proficiency Testing Scheme. The
availability of this process shall be communicated to Proficiency Testing
Scheme participants. |
||
4.9.4 |
Relevant
records of communications with participants shall be maintained and retained,
as appropriate. |
||
4.9.5 |
If
the Proficiency Testing Provider issues statements of participation or
performance, they shall contain sufficient information to not be misleading. |
||
4.10 |
Confidentiality |
||
|
4.10.1 |
The
identity of participants in a Proficiency Testing Scheme shall be
confidential and known only to persons involved in the operation of the
Proficiency Testing Scheme, unless the participant waives confidentiality. |
|
4.10.2 |
All
information supplied by a participant to the Proficiency Testing Provider
shall be treated as confidential. |
||
Note |
Participants
can elect to waive confidentiality within the Proficiency Testing Scheme for
the purposes of discussion and mutual assistance, e.g. to improve
performance. Confidentiality can also be waived by the participant for
regulatory or recognition purposes. In most instances, the proficiency
testing results can be provided to the relevant authority by the participants
themselves. |
||
4.10.3 |
When
an interested party requires the Proficiency Testing results to be directly
provided by the Proficiency Testing Provider, the participants shall be made
aware of the arrangement in advance of participation. |
||
4.10.4 |
In
exceptional circumstances, when a regulatory authority Proficiency Testing
results to be directly provided to the authority by the Proficiency Testing
provider, the affected participants shall be notified of this action in
writing. |
||
5.
MANAGEMENT
REQUIREMENTS |
|||
5.1 |
ORGANIZATION |
||
|
5.1.1 |
The
Proficiency Testing Provider, or the organization of which it is part, shall
be an entity that is legally identifiable and accountable. |
|
5.1.2 |
It
is the responsibility of the Proficiency Testing provider to carry out its
proficiency testing operations in such a way as to meet the requirements of
this International Standard and to satisfy the needs of the participants,
regulatory authorities and organization providing recognition. |
||
5.1.3 |
The
management system shall cover work carried out in the Proficiency Testing
provider’s permanent facilities, at sites away from its permanent facilities,
and is associated temporary facilities. |
||
5.1.4 |
If
the Proficiency Testing provider is part of an organization performing other
activities, then the Proficiency Testing provider shall identify the
responsibilities of key personnel in the organization that have an
involvement in or could have influence on the Proficiency Test activities, in
order to identify potential conflicts of interest. Where potential conflicts
of interest are identified, procedures shall be put in place to ensure that
all activities of the Proficiency Testing provider are conducted with impartiality.
|
||
5.1.5 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall: |
||
a. Have
managerial and technical personnel who, irrespective of other
responsibilities, have the authority and resources needed to carry out their
duties, including the implementation, maintenance and improvement of the
management system, and to identify the occurrence of departures from the
management system or from the procedures for providing Proficiency Testing
Schemes, and to initiate actions to prevent or minimize such departures; |
|||
b. Have
arrangements to ensure that its management and personnel are free from any
undue internal or external commercial, financial and other pressures that may
adversely affect the quality of their work; |
|||
c. Have
policies and procedures to ensure the protection of its participants’
confidential information and proprietary rights, including procedures for
their protection during electronic storage and transmission; |
|||
d. Have
policies and procedures to avoid involvement in any activities that might
diminish confidence in its competence, impartiality, judgement or operational
integrity; |
|||
e. Define
the organization and management structure, its place in any parent
organization, and the relationships between quality management, technical
operations and support services; |
|||
f. Specify
the responsibility, authority, interrelationships and required competence of
all personnel who manage, perform or verify work affecting the quality of the
operation of Proficiency Testing schemes; |
|||
g. Ensure
that the personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their
activities and how they contribute to the achievement of the objectives of
the management system; |
|||
h. Provide
adequate supervision of technical staff, including trainees, by persons
familiar with procedure for each activity; |
|||
i. Have
technical management which has overall responsibility for the technical
operations and the provision of the resources needed to ensure the required
quality of Proficiency Testing Schemes, including access to the necessary
technical expertise in the relevant field of testing, calibration or
inspection, as well as statistics, as indicated in 4.4.1.4; |
|||
j. Appoint
a member of staff as Quality Manager (names as appropriate) who, irrespective
of other duties and responsibilities, shall have defined responsibility and
authority for ensuring that the management system is implemented and followed
at all times; the Quality Manager shall have direct access to the highest
level of management at which decisions are taken on Proficiency Testing
provider’s policies or resources; and |
|||
k. Appoint
deputies for key managerial personnel |
|||
Note |
When
Proficiency Testing providers have a smaller number of personnel, individuals
can have more than one function and it can be impractical to appoint deputies
for all major functions. |
||
5.1.6 |
Top
management shall ensure that appropriate communication processes are
established within the organization and that communication takes place
regarding the effectiveness of the management system. |
||
5.2 |
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM |
||
|
5.2.1 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall establish, implement and maintain a
management system appropriate to its scope of activities, including the type,
range and volume of Proficiency Testing that it provides. |
|
5.2.2 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall define and document its policies,
programmes, procedures, and instructions to the extent necessary to assure
the quality of all aspects of Proficiency Testing. The system’s documentation
shall be communicated to, understood by, available to, and implemented by the
appropriate personnel. |
||
Note |
These
aspects include, but are not limited to, proficiency test item quality (e.g.
homogeneity and stability), characterization (e.g. equipment calibration and
method validation), assignment of property values (e.g. use of appropriate
statistical procedures), evaluation of participant performance, distribution
of Proficiency test items, storage and transport procedures, statistical
treatment of test results, and reporting. |
||
5.2.3 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider’s management system policies related to quality,
including a quality policy statement, shall be defined in a quality manual
(names as appropriate). The overall objectives shall be established and
reviewed during management review. The quality policy statement shall be
issued under the authority of top management. It shall include at least the
following: |
||
a. The
management’s commitment to the quality of its Proficiency Testing services to
participants and other customers; |
|||
b. The
management’s statement of the standard of service; |
|||
c. The
purpose of the management system related to quality; |
|||
d. A
requirement that all personnel concerned with the Proficiency Testing
activities familiarize themselves with the quality documentation and
implement the policies and procedures in their work; and |
|||
e. The
management’s commitment to comply with this International Standard and to
continually improve the effectiveness of the management system. |
|||
5.2.4 |
Top
management shall provide evidence of commitment to the development and
implementation of the management system and to continually improving its
effectiveness. |
||
5.2.5 |
Top
management shall communicate to the organization the importance of meeting
customer requirements, as well as statutory and regulatory requirements. |
||
5.2.6 |
The
quality manual shall include or make reference to the supporting procedures,
including technical procedures. It shall outline the structure of the
documentation used in the management system. |
||
5.2.7 |
The
roles and responsibilities of technical management and the Quality Manager,
including their responsibility for ensuring compliance with this
International Standard, shall be defined in the quality manual. |
||
5.2.8 |
Top
management shall ensure that the integrity of the management system is
maintained when changes to the management system are planned and implemented.
|
||
5.3 |
DOCUMENT
CONTROL |
||
|
5.3.1 |
General |
|
|
The
Proficiency Testing Provider shall establish and maintain procedures to
control all documents that form part of its management system (internally
generated, or from external sources), such as regulations, standards, other
normative documents, proficiency scheme protocols, test or calibration
methods, or both test and calibration methods, as well as drawings, software
specifications, instructions and manuals. |
||
5.3.2 |
Document
approval and issue |
||
|
5.3.2.1 |
All
documents issued as part of the management system shall be reviewed and
approved for use by authorized personnel prior to issue. A master list or
equivalent documenter control procedure identifying the current revision
status and distribution of documents in the management system shall be
established and be readily available, in order to prevent the use of invalid
or obsolete documents, or both. |
|
5.3.2.2 |
The
procedures adopted shall also ensure that: |
||
a. Authorized
editions of appropriate documents are available at all locations where
activities essential to the effective operation of Proficiency Testing
schemes are performed; |
|||
b. Documents
are periodically reviewed and updated, as necessary, to ensure continuing
suitability and compliance with applicable requirements; |
|||
c. Invalid
or obsolete documents are promptly removed from all points of issue or use,
or otherwise assured against unintended use; and |
|||
d. Obsolete
documents retained for either legal or knowledge preservation purposes are
suitably marked. |
|||
5.3.2.3 |
Management
system documents generated by the Proficiency Testing provider shall be
uniquely identified. Such identification shall include the date of issue or
revision identification, or both, page numbering, the total number of pages
or a mark to signify the end of a document, and the issuing
authority/authorities. |
||
5.3.3 |
Document
Changes |
||
|
5.3.3.1 |
Changes
to documents shall be reviewed and approved by the same function that
performed the original review and approval, unless specifically designated
otherwise. The designated personnel shall have access to pertinent background
information upon which to base their review and approval. |
|
5.3.3.2 |
Where
practicable, the altered or new text shall be identified in the document or
the appropriate attachment. |
||
5.3.3.3 |
If
the Proficiency Testing provider’s document control system allows for the
amendment of documents by hand, pending re–issue of the documents, the
procedures and authorities for such amendments shall be defined. Amendments
shall be clearly marked, initialled, and dated. A revised document shall be
issued as soon as practicable. |
||
5.3.3.4 |
Procedures
shall be established to describe how changes in documents maintained in
computerized systems are made and controlled. |
||
5.4 |
REVIEW
OF REQUESTS, TENDERS AND CONTRACTS |
||
|
5.4.1 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall establish and maintain policies and
procedures for the review of requests, tenders and contracts. These reviews
shall ensure that: |
|
a. The
requirements, including those for test and calibration methods, measuring
equipment and Proficiency Test items to be used, are adequately defined,
documented, and understood; |
|||
b. The
Proficiency Testing provider has the capability and resources to meet the
requirements; and |
|||
c. The
Proficiency Testing scheme is technically appropriate. |
|||
Note 1 |
This
review is particularly important when a customer requests a Proficiency
Testing scheme to be created for a specific purpose or for a different level
or frequency of participation from that normally offered. |
||
Note 2 |
This
review can be simplified when the Proficiency Test scheme is fully described
in a catalogue or other notice, and the participant is enrolling for a
routine shipment. |
||
5.4.2 |
Records
of such reviews, including any changes, shall be maintained. Records shall
also be maintained of pertinent discussions with a customer relating to the
customer’s requirements, or the results of the work during the period of
execution of the contract, or both. |
||
5.4.3 |
The
review shall cover all aspects of the request, including any work that is
subcontracted by the Proficiency Testing Provider. |
||
5.4.4 |
The
participants and other customers, as appropriate, shall be informed of any
deviation in the contract or agreed Proficiency Testing scheme design. |
||
5.4.5 |
If
a request or contract is amended after the Proficiency Testing scheme is
underway, the same review process shall be repeated and any amendments shall
be communicated to all affected personnel. |
||
5.5 |
SUBCONTRACTING
SERVICES |
||
|
5.5.1 |
When
a Proficiency Testing provider subcontracts work, the proficiency testing
provider shall demonstrate that the subcontractors experience and technical
competence are sufficient for their assigned tasks, and they comply with the
relevant clauses of this International Standard and other appropriate
standards. |
|
5.5.2 |
The
Proficiency Testing Provider shall not subcontract the planning of the
Proficiency Test Scheme (see 4.4.1.2), the evaluation of performance (see
4.7.2.1) or the authorization of the final report (see 4.8.1). |
||
Note |
This
does not preclude the Proficiency Testing provider utilizing advice or
assistance from any advisors, experts or steering group. |
||
5.5.3 |
The
Proficiency Testing Provider shall inform participants, in advance and in
writing, of services that are, or maybe, subcontracted. |
||
Note |
This
notification can, for example, take the form of a statement in the
Proficiency Testing Scheme documentation such as the following: Various
aspects of the Proficiency Testing Scheme can from time to time be
subcontracted. When subcontracting occurs, it is placed with a competent
subcontractor and the proficiency testing provider is responsible for this
work.” |
||
5.5.4 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall be responsible to the participants and
other customers for the subcontractor’s work, except in the case where a
regulatory authority specifies which subcontractor is to be used. |
||
5.5.5 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall maintain a register of all subcontractors
used in the operation of Proficiency Testing Schemes, including the scope of
subcontracting and a record of the competence assessment against relevant
parts of this International Standard and other appropriate standards for the
work in question. |
||
5.6 |
PURCHASING
SERVICES AND SUPPLIES |
||
|
5.6.1 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall have a policy and procedure(s) for the
selection of services and supplies that it uses and that affect the quality
of its proficiency testing schemes. Procedures shall exist for the purchase,
reception and storage of reagents, proficiency test items, reference
materials and other consumable materials relevant for the Proficiency Testing
Schemes. |
|
5.6.2 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall ensure that purchased supplies, equipment
and consumable materials that affect the quality of proficiency testing
schemes are not used until they have been inspected or otherwise verified as
complying with specifications or requirements. Records of actions taken to
check compliance shall be maintained. |
||
5.6.3 |
Purchasing
documents for items affecting the quality of Proficiency Testing schemes
shall contain data describing the services and supplies ordered. These
purchasing documents shall be reviewed and approved for technical content
prior to release. |
||
5.6.4 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall evaluate suppliers of critical supplies
and services which affect the quality of proficiency testing schemes. The
Proficiency Testing provider shall maintain records of these evaluations, and
list those suppliers that are approved. |
||
5.7 |
SERVICE
TO THE CUSTOMER |
||
|
5.7.1 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall be willing to cooperate with participants
and other customers in clarifying customer’s requests in monitoring the
proficiency testing provider’s performance in relation to the work performed,
provided that the Proficiency Testing provider assures confidentiality to its
participants. |
|
5.7.2 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall seek feedback, both positive and negative,
from its customers. The feedback shall be used and analysed to improve the
management system, proficiency testing schemes, and customer service. |
||
Note |
Examples
of the types of feedback include customer satisfaction surveys and review of
Proficiency Testing reports with customers. |
||
5.8 |
COMPLAINTS
AND APPEALS |
||
|
The
proficiency testing providers shall have a policy and follow a procedure for
the resolution of complaints and appeals received from participants, customers,
or other parties. Records shall be maintained of all complaints, appeals,
investigations and corrective actions taken by the Proficiency Testing
provider. |
||
5.9 |
CONTROL
OF NONCONFORMING WORK |
||
|
5.9.1 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall have a policy and procedures(s) that shall
be implemented when any aspect of its activities does not conform to its own
procedures or the agreed requirements of its customers. The policy and
procedure(s) shall ensure that: |
|
a. The
responsibilities and authorities for the management of nonconforming work are
designated and actions (including halting work of ongoing programmes and
withholding reports, as necessary) are defined and taken when nonconforming
work is identified; |
|||
b. An
evaluation of the significance of the nonconforming work is made; |
|||
c. A
decision on the need for action and timescale is taken immediately, together
with any decision about the acceptability of the nonconforming work; |
|||
d. Proficiency
Testing scheme participants and other customers, as appropriate, are informed
and the nonconforming proficiency test items or reports already sent to
participants are recalled or disregarded; and |
|||
e. The
responsibility for authorization of the resumption of work is defined. |
|||
Note |
Identification
of nonconforming work or problems with the management system or with
technical activities can occur at various places within the management system
and technical operations. Examples are participant complaints, management
reviews and internal or external audits, quality control, preparations of
Proficiency Test items, homogeneity and stability tests, data analysis,
instructions to participants, and materials handling and storage. |
||
5.9.2 |
Where
the evaluation indicates that nonconforming work could recur or that there is
doubt about the compliance of the Proficiency Testing provider or
subcontractor with their own policies and procedures, the corrective action
procedure in 5.11 shall be promptly followed. |
||
5.10 |
IMPROVEMENT |
||
|
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall continually improve the effectiveness of
its management system through the use of the quality policy, quality
objectives, audit results, analysis of data, corrective and preventive
actions and management review. |
||
5.11 |
CORRECTIVE
ACTION |
||
|
5.11.1 |
General |
|
|
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall establish a policy and procedure(s) and
shall designate appropriate personnel for implementing corrective actions
when nonconforming work or departures from the policies and procedures in the
management system or technical operations have been identified. |
||
5.11.2 |
Cause
Analysis |
||
|
The
procedure for corrective action shall start with an investigation to
determine the root cause(s) of the problem. |
||
Note |
Cause
analysis is the key and sometimes the most difficult part in the corrective
action procedure. Often, the root cause is not obvious and thus a careful
analysis of all potential causes of the problem is required. Potential causes
could include customer requirements, proficiency test items and their
specifications, methods and procedures, staff skills and training, consumable
supplies, preparations of Proficiency test items, homogeneity and stability
tests, statistical design, instructions to participants, and materials
handling and storage. |
||
5.11.3 |
Selection
and implementation of corrective actions |
||
|
5.11.3.1 |
Where
corrective action is needed, the proficiency testing provider shall identify
potential corrective actions. It shall select and implement the action(s)
most likely to eliminate the problems and to prevent recurrence. |
|
5.11.3.2 |
Corrective
actions shall be appropriate to the magnitude and risk of the problem. |
||
5.11.3.3 |
The
proficiency testing provider shall document and implement any required
changes resulting from corrective action investigations. |
||
5.11.3.3 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall document and implement any required
changes resulting from corrective action investigations. |
||
5.11.4 |
Monitoring
of Corrective Actions |
||
|
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall monitor the results to ensure that the corrective
actions taken have been effective. |
||
5.11.5 |
Additional
audits |
||
|
Where
the identification of nonconforming activities or departures from authorized
procedures cast doubts on the compliance of the proficiency testing provider
with its own policies and procedures, or on its compliance with this
International Standard, the proficiency testing provider shall ensure that
the appropriate areas of activity are audited in accordance with 5.14 as soon
as possible. |
||
Note |
Such
additional audits often follow the implementation of the corrective actions
to confirm their effectiveness. An additional audit can be necessary only
when a serious issue or risk to the Proficiency Testing scheme is identified.
|
||
5.12 |
PREVENTIVE
ACTION |
||
|
5.12.1 |
Areas
for improvement and potential of nonconforming work, either technical or
concerning the management system, shall be identified. When improvement
opportunities are identified, or if preventive action is required, action
plans shall be developed, implemented and monitored, to reduce the likelihood
of such nonconforming work and to take advantage of the opportunities for
improvement. |
|
5.12.2 |
Any
procedure for preventive action shall include the initiation of such actions
and application of controls to ensure that they are effective. |
||
5.13 |
CONTROL
OF RECORDS |
||
|
5.13.1 |
General |
|
|
5.13.1.1 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall establish and maintain procedures for
identification, collection, indexing, access, filing, storage, maintenance,
and disposal of records. Quality records shall include reports from internal
audits and management reviews, as well as records or corrective and
preventive actions. |
|
5.13.1.2 |
All
records shall be legible and shall be stored and retained in such a way that
they are readily retrievable in facilities that provider a suitable
environment to prevent damage or deterioration and to prevent loss. Retention
times of records shall be established. |
||
Note |
Records
can be in the form of any type of media, such as hard copy or electronic
storage media. |
||
5.13.1.3 |
All
records shall be kept secure and confidential, and in accordance with
relevant regulatory requirements. |
||
5.13.1.4 |
The
proficiency Testing provider shall follow procedures to protect and back–up
records stored electronically and to prevent unauthorized access or amendment
of these records. |
||
5.13.2 |
Technical
Records |
||
|
5.13.2.1 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall retain records of all technical data
relating to each Proficiency Testing round for a defined period, including
but not necessarily limited to: |
|
a. Results
of homogeneity and stability testing; |
|||
b. Instructions
to participants; |
|||
c. Participants
original responses; |
|||
d. Collated
data for statistical analysis; |
|||
e. Information
required for reports (see 4.8); and |
|||
f. Final
reports (summary or individual, or both) |
|||
Note 1 |
It
is advisable to retain sufficient information to establish an audit trail for
the processing of results from Proficiency Testing rounds |
||
Note 2 |
Technical
records are accumulations of data and information which result from carrying
out all Proficiency Testing activities. They can include forms, contracts,
work sheets, work books, check sheets, work notes, subcontractor reports and
participant feedback. |
||
5.13.2.2 |
Data
entry, checking and calculations shall be recorded at the time they are made
and shall be identifiable to the specific task and toe the personnel
responsible. |
||
5.13.2.3 |
When
mistakes occur in records and alterations are made, actions shall be take to:
a. Identify
the change and date of alteration; b. Avoid
loss of original data; and c. Identify
the person making the alteration |
||
5.14 |
INTERNAL
AUDITS |
||
|
5.14.1 |
The
Proficiency Testing provider shall conduct internal audits of its activities
periodically, and in accordance with a predetermined schedule, in order to
verify that is operation continue to comply with the requirements of the
management system and this International Standard. The internal audit
programme shall address all elements of the management system, including the
technical procedures and Proficiency Test item preparation, storage and
distribution, as well as reporting activities for the operation of
Proficiency Testing scheme. It is the responsibility of the Quality Manager
to plan and organize audits as required by the schedule and requested by
management. Internal audits shall be carried out by trained and qualified
personnel who are, wherever resources permit, independent of the activity to
be audited. |
|
Note |
It
is advisable that the programme for internal auditing of the management
system be completed every 12 months. |
||
5.14.2 |
When
audit findings cast doubt upon the effectiveness of the operations, including
the suitability and correctness of Proficiency Test items, procedures,
statistical evaluations and data presentation, the proficiency testing
provider shall take timely corrective action and shall notify its customers
or participants, or both, in Proficiency Testing schemes whose activities may
have been affected. |
||
5.14.3 |
The
area of audited activity, the audit findings and any corrective actions that
arise from them shall be recorded. |
||
5.14.4 |
Follow–up
audit activities shall verify and record the implementation and effectiveness
of any corrective actions taken. |
||
5.15 |
MANAGEMENT
REVIEWS |
||
|
5.15.1 |
In
accordance with a pre–determined schedule and procedure, the Proficiency
Testing provider’s top management shall periodically conduct a review of the
Proficiency testing provider’s management system and Proficiency Testing
activities, in order to ensure their continued suitability and effectiveness
and to introduce any necessary changes or improvements. The review shall take
account of: |
|
a. The
suitability of policies and procedures; |
|||
b. Reports
from management and supervisory personnel; |
|||
c. The
outcome of recent internal audits; |
|||
d. Corrective
and preventive actions; |
|||
e. Assessments
by external bodies; |
|||
f. Changes
in the volume and type of work; |
|||
g. Customer,
advisory group or participant feedback; |
|||
h. Complaints
and appeals; |
|||
i. Recommendations
for improvement; and |
|||
j. Other
relevant factors, such as resources and staff training. |
|||
Note 1 |
A
typical period for conducting a management review is once every 12 months |
||
Note 2 |
Results
can feed into the Proficiency Testing provider’s planning system and can
include the objectives and action plans. |
||
Note 3 |
A
management review includes consideration of related subjects at regular
management meetings. |
||
Note 4 |
Where
the Proficiency testing provider is part of a larger organization, it can be
appropriate to hold a separate review meeting to cover Proficiency Testing
activities. |
||
5.15.2 |
Findings
from management reviews, and the action that arise from them, shall be
recorded. The management shall ensure that those actions are discharged
within an appropriate and agreed timescale. |
No comments:
Post a Comment