Proficiency testing (PT) is a very valuable quality tool for laboratories making all kinds of analytical measurements, in chemistry, microbiology and laboratory medicine. Compared with other quality tools, which are largely concerned with INPUTS (e.g. staff training, calibration, documentation), PT is concerned with OUTPUTS (i.e. the actual results produced by the laboratory). The quality of routine measurements and results, which would normally be reported to customers, both internal and external, should be demonstrated. This is a major reason for many laboratories participating in PT, even if they are not accredited, or use very few, if any, other quality tools. This is important, for it enables the laboratory manager to measure the efficacy of the overall quality system, and to determine if the inputs to this are appropriate. This should be done in a spirit of learning—it was discussed at the previous workshop whether PT schemes are “teachers” or “policemen”, and the consensus was that MOST are teachers (or at least try to be). Learning from mistakes, investigating problems, implementing corrective actions and then observing whether thisis successful in the next PT represents what many in our profession would regard as a proper and effective use of PT. Although this may be the intended primary use of PT by laboratories, we must not forget that PT has other valid uses. In particular, the use of PT to demonstrate competence to third parties—accreditation bodies, regulators, and customers—has become more important in the last few years. However, this development, however valuable, can lead to abuse of PT scheme data. This paper will highlight briefly some examples of both proper use and abuse of PT. These are taken from my experience with PT schemes over many years.
