Most Frequently Cited Accreditation Inspection Deficiencies for Clinical Molecular Oncology Testing Laboratories and Opportunities for Improvement

Nikoletta Sidiropoulos, Sarah K. Daley, Marian Briggs, Helen Fernandes, Christina M. Lockwood, Amer Z. Mahmoud, Jason D. Merker, Patricia Vasalos, Lynnette M. Wielgos, Joel T. Moncur*, Daniel H. Farkas

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


Context.—The College of American Pathologists (CAP), a laboratory accreditation organization with deemed status under the Clinical Laboratories Improvement Amendments of 1988 administers accreditation checklists. Checklists are used by laboratories to ensure regulatory compliance. Peer-level laboratory professionals audit laboratory records during inspections to assess compliance. Objective.—To identify the most frequently cited deficiencies for molecular oncology laboratories undergoing CAP accreditation inspections and describe laboratory improvement opportunities. Design.—The CAP Molecular Oncology Committee (MOC), which is involved in maintaining the Molecular Pathology checklist, reviewed data and inspector comments associated with the most frequently observed citations related to molecular oncology testing from laboratories inspected by the CAP during a 2-year period (2018–2020). Results.—Of 422 molecular oncology laboratories that underwent accreditation inspections, 159 (37.7%) were not cited for any molecular oncology–related deficiencies. For the All Common (COM) and Molecular Pathology checklists, there were 364 and 305 deficiencies, corresponding to compliance rates of 98.8% and 99.6%, respectively. The most frequently cited deficiencies are described. The COM checklist deficiencies were associated most often with the analytic testing phase; the MOL checklist deficiencies were more evenly distributed across the preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic phases of testing. Conclusions.—Molecular oncology laboratories demonstrated excellent compliance with practices that support high-quality results for patients and the health care providers who use those test results in patient management. This review includes a critical assessment of opportunities for laboratories to improve compliance and molecular oncology testing quality.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1441-1449
Number of pages9
JournalArchives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Issue number12
StatePublished - Dec 2022
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Most Frequently Cited Accreditation Inspection Deficiencies for Clinical Molecular Oncology Testing Laboratories and Opportunities for Improvement'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this