A VIN survey in 20071 found that > 85% of veterinary practices have some form of in-house laboratory, which varies significantly from what is found in small, one-doctor practices to large referral hospitals. When veterinarians were asked why they hadnot implemented a quality assurance program, almost 60% of those without a program responded in some way that they did not know how. Few clinical pathology courses teach quality assurance to veterinary students at all. Veterinarians do not receive training during their veterinary medical education that would enable them to manage the equipment that they purchase. They are therefore poorly prepared to be a discerning consumer when sales representatives from the major companies come to sell their wares. They are dependent on quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) education from manufacturers, which is important, but should be just one facet of the quality assurance knowledgebase in the facility if there is to be an in-house laboratory. They also are taken unaware when sales representatives try to sell them different products that include reagent contracts and lack any mention of an appropriate quality assurance program. The appropriate costs of a well-managed laboratory are frequently grossly underestimated and practitioners have been caught in reagent purchase requirements that are very costly as they are not familiar with actual usage and expiry of these products. This can result in the use of expired reagent, which is obviously against all guidelines and results in imprecise, inaccurate, and poor quality results. Concern about the quality of veterinary in-practice testing has been expressed by veterinarians themselves in published literature2"4; however, little, if any, concise and practical guidance is available to veterinary practitioners on this topic.
展开▼
