Note: Please complete the report and submit it to SMILE and your PNL within 30 days. Site/Laboratory Name: New York EQA Provider and #: CAP

Similar documents
Quality Control: Tips, Troubleshooting, and Tidbits

SF Cube. Exclusive Technology, Inclusive Approach. BC-6800 Auto Hematology Analyzer. Cell Analysis Technology

Automated Hematology Analyzer. Small Footprint. Big Difference.

Automated Hematology System. Your Complete Choice

BEYOND A BETTER BOX XN-V SERIES TM MULTISPECIES HEMATOLOGY ANALYZERS. Accelerate Your Multispecies Research Laboratory XN-V IS FOR ANIMAL USE ONLY

Ruby. A shining example of. Put science on your side. Intended Use:

Automated Hematology Analyzer. Differentiate with the XT-4000i

See Brilliant Results

BC Auto Hematology Analyzer. A CUTE 5-part

Haematology. Reagents and analyzers SWISS HAEMATOLOGY S O L U T I O N

BC-6800 Auto Hematology Analyzer. Small Cube, Big Difference

BC Auto Hematology Analyzer. A CUTE 5-part

BEYOND A BETTER BOX XN-SERIES TM AUTOMATED HEMATOLOGY SYSTEMS. Reshaping Compact Automation

XN Series. What s in it for me? Krista Curcio, MT(ASCP), MBA Product Manager, Hematology Systems Sysmex America, Inc. All rights reserved.

Department of Pathology

It Should have five discrete analysis modes CBC, CBC+ DIFF, CBC + Retic, CBC+Retic+Diff & Retic only.

XN-SERIES AUTOMATED HEMATOLOGY SYSTEMS

WADA Technical Document TD2019BAR. Blood Analytical Requirements for the Athlete Biological Passport

Reshaping compact automation

Reshaping compact automation

Quintus 5-part hematology analyzer In-depth, quality-controlled 26-parameter results

HST-330 TM and Total Laboratory Automation

XN-9100 AUTOMATED HEMATOLOGY SYSTEMS

Greater Possibilities By Design

Establishing Chemistry QC Ranges

BEYOND A BETTER BOX XN-9000 AUTOMATED HEMATOLOGY SYSTEMS. Reshaping Scalable Automation

Performance Evaluation of the Coulter LH 750 Hematology Analyzer

11/2/2015. Describe the technologies available on the XN-Series and the reason(s) for selection

Prepared by Date Adopted Supersedes Procedure # Adapted from HPTN Policy. Review Date Revision Date Signature

Immature Granulocyte Enumeration Our Journey from Manual to Automated Reporting

We Believe the Possibilities. Automated hematology Analyzer. XN-L Series. Leading Hematology for Better Patient Care

Common Deficiencies

norma Hematology family norma Access norma norma Vision Reagents

Proficiency Testing Corrective Action Checklist:

Features & Benefits Five-part differential on cat, dog, horse, cow, alpaca and llama; three-part differential on the nine other species

UNRIVALED SIMPLICITY. Exceptional Ease of Use. The STAR brings new meaning to the word simple

The Simple Solution for CBC Testing

Product Fact Sheet Added values XN-CBC and XN-DIFF

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

9/29/2015. Describe the technologies available on the XN-Series and the reason(s) for selection

Proficiency Testing Turning Pitfalls into Positive Outcomes

Plan Subject Index Number Section Subsection Category Contact Last Revised References Applicable To Detail PRINCIPLE:

Implementation and evaluation of the Extended IPU GFHC sample validation rule set

Quality Control in clinical laboratory. Kanit Reesukumal, M.D. Assistant Professor Clinical Pathology Mahidol University

SMILE Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD USA. Guidelines for Manual Evaluation of CAP Hemocytometer Fluid Count

norma Hematology family norma norma Vision Reagents

Hematology and Coagulation Controls

Supporting Information. For

Practical Guide to Running Controls

Capital Authorization Request Lake Fork Health Service District

CONCURRENT 10: THE COMPLETE BLOOD COUNT AND BEYOND: QUALITY ISSUES AND REFERENCE METHODS

Strengthening Laboratory Management Toward Accreditation. Module 6: Quality Assurance

Establishing Quality Control Target Values and Standard Deviations for Hematology Instrumentation

XN Hematology Case Studies Every Picture Tells a Story

Verification of abnormal results from Coulter instrumentation

RUO Addendum. UniCel DxH Series with System Manager Software. Coulter Cellular Analysis System. B26673AC July 2015

Dry Hematology Analyzer Fast, Simple CBC Analysis Designed for the Point of Care

Case Study College of American Pathologists. All rights reserved. cap.org

CLIA Corner. In This Issue... Common Deficiencies. Proficiency Testing Personnel Micro Quality Control

LabGuide 13 How to Verify Performance Specifications

The International Haemostasis External Quality Control Program

DIAGNOSTIC ACCREDITATION PROGRAM College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

Evaluation of the Automated Immature Granulocyte Count (IG) on Sysmex XE-2100 Automated Haematology Analyser vs. Visual Microscopy (NCCLS H20-A)

XN Series. Greater Possibilities by Design What s in it for me? Krista Curcio, MT(ASCP), MBA Product Manager, Hematology Systems

A Division of Woodley Equipment Company Ltd

DxH part differential closed tube hematology analyzer

Medonic M-series M32. User s Manual

2008 HFC-A PARTICIPANT SUMMARY

Diagnostic Medical Equipment New Revenue for Your Medical Practice

2015 Version MODULE 8. Laboratory Testing. SLMTA Trainer s Guide

Urinalysis and Body Fluids CRg. Laboratory Regulation. Laboratory Regulation for Quality Assessment. Unit 1 B. Quality Assessment

QC and Changing Lots

Miltenyi Biotec CryMACS Freezing Bag Validation

TENDER DOCUMENT. NIT No.: NRO/CON/738/672 Date: FOR VOLUME III BILL OF QUANTITY / PRICE BID ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR (MEDICAL SERVICES) NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHARAK PALIKA HOSPITAL MOTI BAGH : NEW DELHI

Angelia Dooley, MT, BS CRI Educational Surveyor. Terri Wolek, MBA, MT(ASCP) Bio-Rad Laboratories Senior Sales Product Manager

Cross-Network Safety Quality Assurance: Guidelines for EQA Monitoring, Data and Communication Flow

Fully Automated EIA System. True open flexibility.

SEED HAEMATOLOGY. SNCS IQAS Online the quality control solution for the haematology laboratory

Objectives. Martin Health System 5/10/2016

Advances in Biochemistry & Applications in Medicine

Iron Status Assessment <DUE: 5/15/14>

MAXIMAL PRP BANK. Utility Model Patent Registered Apply for PCT.

Sysmex Educational Enhancement and Development No

WEQAS: what is it and what does it mean?. Celia Critchley Point of Care Co-ordinator Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

QUALITY CONTROL & STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES EHI JAMES OCHEIKWU.

Measurement Uncertainty Guide. ISO Accreditation Program

CLSI C60: Assay Validation & Post-Validation Monitoring

Laboratory Quality Control Management System. A New Approach to Quality Control

SUPPLIER SURVEY FORM Instructions

Designing QC Activities to More Precisely Manage Analytical Accuracy and Patient Risk

MOLECULAR TESTING: VERIFYING/VALIDATING INSTRUMENTS, REAGENTS AND ASSAYS. Richard L. Hodinka, Ph.D.

Implementation Guide. 3a. Skills Checklist. 3b. Competency Exam. 3c. Answer Key: Competency Exam. 3d. Competency Assessment Checklist

Guidelines for Use of Back-Up Equipment and Back-up Clinical Laboratories for Safety Testing in DAIDS-Sponsored Clinical Trials

CLIA Personnel & Competency Requirements

QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE MOLECULAR MICROBIOLOGY LABORATORY

IQCP for the Akers Bio PIFA PlussPF4 Rapid Assay

Ready, Set, Test! AACC Conference Mass Spectrometry in the Clinical Lab: Best Practice and Current Applications September 17-18, 2013 St.

Transcription:

SMLE GENERAL NVESTGATON CHECKLST/FORM SURVEY NFORMATON EXTERNAL QUALTY ASSURANCE (EQA) Note: Please complete the report and submit it to SMLE and your PNL within 30 days. Site/Laboratory Name: New York EQA Provider and #: CAP 99772255 Survey Name: FH9-A 2012 Analyzer Name/Model: Sysmex XE Date Survey Received: 2 Feb 2012 Date Analysis Performed: 10 Feb 2012 Date Survey Results Submitted: 15 Feb 2012 Date Evaluations Available: 2 March 2012 Previous Survey Problems (f yes, explain): No nvestigation Performed By: Mark Date: 11 April 2012 Unacceptable EQA Panel: Date of Repeat testing: Specimen Number Analyte Reported Repeated Result Result ntended Result/Peer Group FH9-01 Monocyte % 8.2 No samples 8.36-14.56 FH9-02 5.6 retained for 7.76-12.03 FH9-03 7.0 testing 8.35-12.47 FH9-04 6.7 7.43-13.24 FH9-05 5.6 9.3-13.85 ROOT CAUSE ANALYSS PRE-ANALYTCAL ERRORS: YES NO N/A 1. Were proficiency testing materials received in the laboratory without delay? Please describe any delivery issues. 2. Were specimens shipped and stored appropriately according to temperature requirements? 3. Did all EQA vials arrive intact (i.e. no missing, broken or leaking specimens) f not, did you contact the provider and SMLE? 4. Did you prepare/reconstitute/dilute EQA specimens as indicated by the kit instructions? 5. f there were special instructions provided in the kit, were they followed? (Can be indicated by this symbol ) 6. Were the correct tests performed on the correct specimen(s)? 7. Was routine maintenance of instruments/equipment performed as scheduled (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.)? 8. Did you check lot numbers and storage conditions of kits, reagents, and materials used to perform testing on samples? 9. Were expiration dates verified before sample testing (Controls, reagents, etc.)? ANALYTCAL ERRORS: YES NO N/A

11. Did you review the current and past EQA event for bias, shifts and trends? f present, were investigations performed and what were the outcomes? Negative bias on this survey. 2. Did you evaluate the instrument/method for any problems prior to or after the EQA event? Describe any problems identified. 3. Was the calibration at the time of the EQA event reviewed for acceptability? f not acceptable, comment: 4. How do you establish your Quality Control (QC) mean and ranges? Lab established Use manufacturer s 5. Were all QC levels for this analyte within acceptable range(s) on day the survey was run? 6. Are Westgard QC rules used? f so, which ones? 7. Were QC/Levy Jennings charts reviewed for any trends, shifts and/or bias? A negative bias was noted for monocytes% on QC but since all were within 2SD no action taken. 8. Does your laboratory track precision by monitoring Coefficient of Variation (CV) for this analyte? f yes, was your CV acceptable at the time of the survey? 9. f manual calculation was performed for this analyte was it checked for accuracy? (dilutions, formula) 10. Was instrument or reagent manufacturer contacted? Requested service on instrument on 6 April 2012 11. Are questionable results reviewed by supervisor/pathologist before reporting? Not applicable POST ANALYTCAL ERRORS: YES NO N/A 1. Were the results correctly transcribed from the instrument print-out/ worksheets to the EQA Result Form? 2. Did you verify that the electronic results submitted matched the EQA result form (i.e. was the provider website checked for accuracy of results submitted?) 3. Were the correct instrument/method/reagent reported on the EQA Result Form? 4. Were the correct units reported? 5. Were results reported with correct decimal place? 6. Were your results graded in the appropriate peer group? 7. Did you select the correct result code for photographic images and/or microscopic examinations? NVESTGATVE ACTONS AND ROOT CAUSE: Briefly discuss what actions were taken in this investigation and what you believe is the primary cause of this EQA problem. The monocyte% was showing a negative bias on all 3 levels of the QC, no immediate action was taken as results were still within range. Daily QC checks between manual and automated differential counts are done and this too was within acceptable range. However, as was noted from the results of the FH9- A survey, significant differences between the monocyte% of the Sysmex XE and XT analyzers were noted. The biomedical engineer was called in to run calibrator material on the XE and do a sensitivity adjustment on the monocytes. See attachments for LJ Charts of monocytes % after sensitivity adjustments on the 6 th April, comparison of monocyte% between XE and XT after sensitivity adjustment and job card referring to sensitivity adjustment as performed by Biomedical engineer. Was Personnel training/competency reviewed? Staff education or re-training conducted, as appropriate? Hematology staff was re-trained to note any biases, trends or shifts even if within acceptable limits. Corrective action log was added to QC log. Type of Error:

Methodological Survey evaluation problem x Technical Other (explain) Clerical Study mpact: Were study participant results assessed for adverse effects? f applicable, review participant results, amend results and notify the following---physicians, study staff and network representatives. Study participants that had results during this time period were reviewed. Repeat testing showed all results within normal range so no adverse effect on participants was noted. FUTURE PREVENTATVE MEASURES/ ACTONS: Briefly discuss how you will prevent this problem from occurring in the future. Calibrator material run on the Sysmex XE analyzer every 6 months with service. f it is found that parameters are within the specified target range of the calibrator, no adjustment is made. n the future we will access parameters for biases, trends or shifts on our QC charts to decide if adjustments are required. PREPARED BY: Name/Title Date Signature Mark 11 April 2012 FOR SMLE USE ONLY. SMLE Review: Acceptable and complete nvestigation. nvestigation is incomplete. See comments. Name/Title: Date: 14 April 2012 Cinderella FOR NETWORK USE ONLY. PNL Review: Acceptable and complete nvestigation. nvestigation is incomplete. See comments. Name/Title: Date: 15 April 2012 Prince Charming Table for supporting documents: Attachment# Description of attachments Service report, QC charts and post QC results

Service Report- Site/Caller Summary: Site 0060600449 Site Name: Address: Zip City: PO Box: PO Box Zip: l Country: Caller Salutation: Title: First Name: Phone: 021 421 9338 Last Name: Fax: 021 4252907 Case Summary Case Case Title: Assay Performance Call Type: Service Report SA-Code: ServVisit Em'cy Severity: Normal Priority: Medium Date of Order: Date: 06.04.2012 nstrument Summary nstrument nstrument Family: Hematology nstrument Line: XE-2100 Serial Number: Part Description: Hemato Analyzer XE-2100, Contract: Part Number: nstrument Problem Description nstrument Error: Problem description: Customer requests optimisation of Monocyte populations. Research log: Cleaned SRV and piercer needle, ran scs1000 verfication checks, performed whole blood senstivity adjustments, unit checked and tested ok, customer monitored unit ok. Spare parts/reagents used ldent-no. Manufact. Description nvoice Type Quantity No. FSE: Customer Signature: Full Name: Page t /1

tem Patient 10: Sample No.: 5142886 Rack: 4 Tube:3 11/04/2012 12:16:12 Ward: Dr.: Name: Birth: Sex: lnst.ld: XE-21 00-1 nst.ld:xt-1800i-1 Negative Positive DFF WBC HCT 0.115 - [].. MCV 86.5 - -. MCH 29.3 g] sse MCHC 33.9 [g/d ] PLT 333 [109/L] M NRBC RDW-SD 46. 6 [fl] u Vl... RDW-CV 14.5 +l%1 POW 8.4 - fl MPV 8.3 - [fl] P-LCR 11.1 - [%] PCT 0.28 [%] [109/L] /:'; NEUT 4.73 ;:. 76.2 + f%1 LYMPH 1.20 [109/L]..::.. :... 19.3 - %, MONO 0.22 [109/L] SFL 3.5 -[o&; c > EO 0.06 [109/L] 1.0 o] DC BASO 0.00 [109/L] 0.0 l<.bt PLT-0 NRBC [109/L] [1 u v G 0.01 09/L] 0.2.. ọ. HPC# RET RF LFR MFR 6.21 [109/L] HGB 3.9 [g/d] l RBC 1.33- [1012/L].. [1 03/ul] [%] [%] [%] [%] HFR [%] RET-He [pg] PF [%] [f1b [%] [/1OOWBC] [%] [10 6/ul] RBC :Jt PLT ' BALO 01 SFL.< U\_ SFL,......; -.... <.. rt. -.....,.:). WBC P Message(s) RBC/RET P Message(s) PLTP Message(s)

tem Patient 10: Sample No.: 5142886 Rack: 4 Tube:3 11/04/2012 12:16:12 Ward: Dr.: Name: Birth: Sex: nst.ld:xt-1800i-1 Positive Count DFF WBC/BASO -' "- V -, WBC 6.25 [10"9/L] RBC 1.28 - [10"12/L] HGB 3.8 - [g/dl].. HCT 0.117 [L/L] ;.._:l < " --......-",.,...... ""' MCV 91.4 [fl] MCH 29.7 [pg] MCHC 32.5 [g/dl] PLT 369 [10"9/L] ROW-SO 43.8 [fl] P.,LCR 14.0 [%] PCT 0.31 [%] NEUT 4.71 [10"9/L] 75.3 + LYMPH 1.20 [10"9/L] 19.2 - MONO 0.26 [10"9/L] 4.2 EO 0.07 [10"9/L] 1.1 BASO 0.01 [10"9/L] 0.2 G 0.01 [10"9/L] 0.2 c. :... RDW-CV 13.9 [%] POW 9.0 [fl].' -. r: :;, MPV 8.5 - [fl] f %1 [%] [%fill [% [%] <;<;( u V "- PLT ()!' sse BALO WBC P Message(s) RBC P Message(s) PLT P Message(s) Anemia

tem Patient 10: Sample No.: 5142894 Rack: 4 Tube: 1 11/04/2012 12:14:42 Ward: Dr.: Birth: Name: lnst.d: Sex: nst.ld:xt-1800i-1 XE-21 00-1 Positive Positive Morph. DFF u WRrfRA O a.. WBC 8.96 [109/L] RBC 3.18 [1012/L] HGB 9.1 [g/dl] HCT 0.267 []. :.. MCV 84.0 - [fl 28.6 MCH g] sse MCHC 34.1 [g/dl] PLT 183 [1 09/L] M NRBC RDW-SD 52.5 [fl] RDW-CV 17.2 +(%1... PDW 10.1 fl u MPV 9.4 [fl] " P-LCR 20.1 [%] PCT 0.17 [%] r. ' NEUT 5.71 * [109/L] 63.7 * ;;.:,...: LYMPH 2.38 [109/L] 26. 6 % 4.. 7.8 [109/L].fo/rf; EO 0.13 * [109/L] 1.5 o] oc BASO 0.04 [1 09/L] 0.4 [%].l{.c' l' PLT-0 NRBC [1 09/L] [/1OOWBC] u G 0. 06 [109/L] 0.7 [%] HPC# [103/uL] RET [%] [1 06/uL] RF [%] LFR [%] MFR [%] HFR [%] RET-He [pg] PF [%] - ".:; ;..''fj." lj Jl {'' :. BALO /\ 1.,.. ". :. '. ). : SFL Ṿ. Ị. SFL SFL.. WBC P Message(s) RBC/RET P Message(s) PLTP Message(s) Left Shift?

tem Patient 10: Sample No.: 5142894 Rack: 4 Tube: 1 11/04/2012 12:14:42 Ward: Dr.: Birth: Name: Sex: nst.ld:xt-1800i-1 Positive Morph. Count DFF WBC/BASO A: WBC 8.78 [10"9/L] RBC 3.06 [10"12/L] HGB 9.0 [g/dl] HCT 0.262 [] MCV 85.6 - [fl] MCH 29.4 [pg] MCHC 34.4 [g/dl] PLT 194 [10"9/L] ROW-SO 50.9 [fl] ROW-CV 16.8 + [%] POW 10.4 [fl] MPV 9.8 [fl] P-LCR 22.2 [%] PCT 0.19 [%] NEUT 5.55 * [10"9/L] 63.2 * LYMPH 2.28 * [10"9/L] 26.0 * f%1 MONO 0.78 * [10"9/L] 8.9 * [%] EO 0.14 * [10"9/L] 1.6 * [% BASO 0.03 [10"9/L] 0.3 [% G 0.08 [10"9/L] 0.9 [%] BC l. :-...-..,.,.. ;b' "". u V "- ; <;<;(.ạ... _. :.;.. PLT sse BALO WBC P Message(s) RBC P Message(s) PLTP Message(s) Anemia Left Shift? Atypical Lympho?

tem Patient 10: Sample No.: 5142904 Rack: 4 Tube: 2 11/04/2012 12:15:27 Ward: Dr.: Name: Birth: Sex: lnst.d:xt-1800i-1 Positive WBC 15.58+ [10 9/L],A A' RBC 2.80 [10 12/L] HGB 7.5 [g/dl] (. HCT 0.223- []..... MCV... 79.6 - [fl MCH 26.8 g] MCHC 33.6 [g/dl] PLT 125- [10 9/L] M NRBC RDW-SD 52.3 [fl] u RDW-CV "...'.... c.: 17.9 + F'ol PDW 11.5 fl MPV 9.6 [fl] P-LCR 22.6 [%] PCT 0.12 - [%] NEUT 11.01 * [10 9/L] 70.6 * l%1 LYMPH 1.38 * [1 09/L] 8.9 * % MONO 3.14 * [10 9/L] 20.2 jofj; Sfl EO 0.02 * [109/L] 0.1 o] DC BASO 0.03 [10 9/L] 0.2 [%] Kb l PLT-0 NRBC [10 9/L] [/1OOWBC] u G 0.41 [10 9/L] 2.6 [%] "...'. HPC# [10 3/uL] RET [%] [10 6/uL] RF [%] LFR [%] MFR [%] HFR [%] RET-He Sfl [pg] PF [%] : \ R B : C. " PLT.':.;:.! sse SFL /!;'.:. f BALO..:..'!]{...-::-,:,' ' ).. :.q- WBC P Message(s) RBC/RET P Message(s) PLTP Message(s) Monocytosis G Present Left Shift? Atypical Lympho?

tem Patient 10: Sample No.: 5142904 Rack: 4 Tube: 2 11/04/2012 12:15:27 Ward: Dr.: Name: Birth: Sex: lnst.d:xt-1800i-1 Positive Diff. Morph. DFF WBC/BASO Count "Vī ; WBC 16.04 + [10"9/L] RBC 2.74 [10"12/L]. HGB 7.3 - [g/dl].. M' HCT 0.224 []..:,.- MCV 81.8 - [fl] MCH 26.6 [pg] MCHC 32.6 [g/dl] ụ... "- PLT 142 [10"9/L] ROW-SO 51.5 [fl] -' J '-';.:.. <;«;( RDW-CV 17.7 + [%] :{,.- POW 11.2 [fl]. MPV 9.7 [fl]............. P-LCR 23.1 [%] PCT 0.14 - [%] NEUT 11.26 * [10"9/L] 70.2 * LYMPH 1.42 [10"9/L] 8.9 - MONO 3.26 + [10"9/L] 20.3 + EO 0.04 * [10"9/L] 0.2 * BASO 0.06 [10"9/L] 0.4 G 0.46 [10"9/L] 2.9 (%) [%] [%1m [% c [%] ; PLT sse BALO WBC P Message(s) RBC P Message(s) PLTP Message(s) Neutrophilia Monocytosis Present Left Shift? G Anemia

Material:control Mode:closed XE-2100 Quality control!instrument D Level(Lot) Lot NEoxp. oay loate Froiil' Number Of Plots:19 rxe:2100-1 Leve11(New)QC-207008JLO 31/05/2012 02/04/2012 11/04/2012 Print Date:11/04/2012 Time:16:34:24... r-- -- = Targ.= = 46.3 SO= 33.1 Mean= 19.9 CV= - ===--====--==-== = = 20.6 SO= - 11.5 Mean= CV= 2.4 1.65 33.61 4.9 1.281 10.9-11. - 7-14.3 SD= 0.77 - - - - - - -- 1.63 SO= 1.36 Mean= 1.09 CV= 1.37 SD= 0.98 Mean= - 0000000000000000111 2334455667778899001 ///////////////// 0000000000000000000 4444444444444444444 2-1

XE-2100 Qualiy con rol ll -- - - -- ll= 23.4 CV= 3.8 Ul 15.8 SD= 1.03 1 Ul= 9.9 Mean= 09 Targ.= 4.0 CV= 11.4 ll= ---- SD= 0.94 Mean= 10.71 -:--::- ll ---- -- ------ - ---- ----- ----- ḻl= 5.2 CV= 8.8 84.2 SO= 0.65 1 67.4 Mean= 67.9 c. Pri noa e:11/04/2012 Time:16:34:56..... Targ.= 29.3 Ul = 35.2 SD"' J:":"14l -- - - --- - Ul= 1 T, arg.= t : Targ.= _ = Mean= 30.3 50.6 CV= 1.0 15.2- -S-D-=- - -0-.44-1 11.7 Mean= 11.6 s_.2 c_v_= 3.81..!...:.!!..._ CV=- -.. -. Ul= 3.75 SO= ------ - - - -- ll -- -- - -- -- Ul 0.083 3.26 Mean= 3.25 = 2.28 SO= 0.108 Targ.= 1.90 Mean= 1.971 = 1.52 CV= 5. 5 --- Ul= 1.02 SD= 0.0601 ' 0.64 Mean= 0.59,, - : -- - _ - - ---------- _ ------ --- ----- ----- ---- _ Tar: -- ---- ----- --- - --- ---- --- - - -- - ---- --- - -- - -- -- -!Tar: CV= 10.2 1 1.02 SD= 0.068 0.68 Mean= 0.70-5.46 SD= ----o.lo91

ll - 0.34 CV= 9.71 Ll Targ.= 4.37 Mean= 4.42 1 _ L _L_L= 3._28_ cv_=_ 2. 00000000000000001111 233445566 77788990001 ll//ll//////l/111/11 00000000000000000000 44444444444444444444 2-1

Material:control Mode:closed XE-2100 Quality Control nstrument D 1 Level(Lot) LOt NO. 1 Exp. Day Date From TO Number of Plots:20 XE-2100-1 1 Level 3(New) QC-20700812 1 31/05/2012 02/04/2012 ll/04/2012 i - -----------,-- ------- - ------- --------- - } ----------- ---------- - --- -------- --- - ---- - - - ----------- ----- - ------ -- - -------------- ----------- - ----- - ---- ---------- ------ - -!l Print Date:ll/04/2012 Time:16:35:20 = 31.2 SD= 0.74 Targ.= 26.0 Mean= 26.3 = 20.8 CV= 2.8 --- -...-\--.J-'-3'!-)- - n----- (;, = 14.6 SD= 1.10 -- - -------- ------ - ---- ----------- ---------------------- - -- -- -- -------------- -- - - -- Targ.= 9.7 Mean= 9.2 = 4.8 CV= 12.0 = 17.0 SD= 0.87 Targ.= 11.3 Mean= 11.3 = 5.6 CV= 7.7 = 89.0 SD= 0.72 Targ.= 71.2 Mean= 71.5 = 53.4 CV= 1.0 = 15.0 SD= 0.64 Targ.= 12.0 Mean= 12.6 = 9.0 CV= 5.1 = 10.63 SD= 0.382 Targ.= 9.24 Mean= 9.26 = 7.85 CV= 4.1 = 5.45 SD= 0.197 Targ.= 4.54 Mean= 4.58 = 3.63 CV= 4.3 1 = 2.54 SD= 0.174 Targ.= 1.69 Mean= 1.60 = 0.84 CV= 10.9 = 2.97 SO= 0.144 Targ.= 1.98 Mean= 1.97 = 0.99 CV= 7.3 = 15.54 SD= 0.353 Targ.= 12.43 Mean= 12.45 = 9.32 CV= 2.8

SMLE nvestigation Form for Qualitative/Quantitative Testing 00000000000000001111 23344556677788990011 l///11/ll/l/1/l///// 00000000000000000000 44444444444444444444 QC Chart Error Ex.doc Page 16

SMLE nvestigation Form for Qualitative/Quantitative Testing 2-1 QC Chart Error Ex.doc Page 17