Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 30, 2025

Measurement of Factor V Activity in Human Plasma Using a Microplate Coagulation Assay
Published on: September 9, 2012
Lot verification practices in Ontario clinical chemistry laboratories - Results of a patterns-of-practice survey
Angela C Rutledge1,2, Anna Johnston1,3, Ronald A Booth1,4
1Institute for Quality Management in Healthcare (IQMH) Endocrinology and Immunology Scientific Committee, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Objectives:
Verifying new reagent or calibrator lots is crucial for maintaining consistent test performance. The Institute for Quality Management in Healthcare (IQMH) conducted a patterns-of-practice survey and follow-up case study to collect information on lot verification practices in Ontario.
Methods:
The survey had 17 multiple-choice questions and was distributed to 183 licensed laboratories. Participants provided information on materials used and approval/rejection criteria for their lot verification procedures for eight classes of testing systems. The case study provided a set of lot comparison data and was distributed to 132 laboratories. Responses were reviewed by IQMH scientific committees.
Results:
Of the 175 laboratories that responded regarding reagent lot verifications, 74% verified all tests, 11% some, and 15% none. Of the 171 laboratories that responded regarding calibrator lot verifications, 39% verified all calibrators, 4% some, and 57% none. Reasons for not performing verifications ranged from difficulty performing parallel testing to high reagent cost. For automated chemistry assays and immunoassays, 23% of laboratories did not include patient-derived materials in reagent lot verifications and 42% included five to six patient materials; 58% of laboratories did not include patient-derived materials in calibrator lot verifications and 23% included five to six patient materials. Different combinations of test-specific rules were used for acceptance criteria. For a failed lot, 98% of laboratories would investigate further and take corrective actions. Forty-three percent of laboratories would accept the new reagent lot in the case study.
Conclusion:
Responses to the survey and case study demonstrated variability in lot verification practices among laboratories.

