English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the 2000s, a number of initiatives were taken internationally to improve quality in genetic testing services. To contribute to and update the limited literature available related to this topic, we surveyed 910 human molecular genetic testing laboratories, of which 291 (32%) from 29 European countries responded. The majority of laboratories were in the public sector (81%), affiliated with a university hospital (60%). Only a minority of laboratories was accredited (23%), and 26% was certified. A total of 22% of laboratories did not participate in external quality assessment (EQA) and 28% did not use reference materials (RMs). The main motivations given for accreditation were to improve laboratory profile (85%) and national recognition (84%). Nearly all respondents (95%) would prefer working in an accredited laboratory. In accredited laboratories, participation in EQA (P&lt;0.0001), use of RMs (P=0.0014) and availability of continuous education (CE) on medical/scientific subjects (P=0.023), specific tasks (P=0.0018), and quality assurance (P&lt;0.0001) were significantly higher than in non-accredited laboratories. Non-accredited laboratories expect higher restriction of development of new techniques (P=0.023) and improvement of work satisfaction (P=0.0002) than accredited laboratories. By using a quality implementation score (QIS), we showed that accredited laboratories (average score 92) comply better than certified laboratories (average score 69, P&lt;0.001), and certified laboratories better than other laboratories (average score 44, P&lt;0.001), with regard to the implementation of quality indicators. We conclude that quality practices vary widely in European genetic testing laboratories. This leads to a potentially dangerous situation in which the quality of genetic testing is not consistently assured.

Quality assurance practices in Europe: a survey of molecular genetic testing laboratories