Method Validation & Verification.
Evidence before go-live.
Bringing a new assay or instrument into a clinical laboratory requires more than installing the system. The study plan, applicable performance characteristics, data review and authorized approval need to support the laboratory's intended use.
CLIA method verification and validation are not interchangeable.
The required study depends on the test system and how the laboratory intends to use it. An unmodified FDA-cleared or approved system generally calls for verification of applicable manufacturer performance claims before patient reporting. Modified systems, laboratory-developed procedures and methods without applicable manufacturer claims may call for establishing performance specifications. Our work begins by identifying the correct pathway with your laboratory leadership.
Determine the applicable characteristics
Depending on the test and regulatory pathway, the evaluation may address accuracy, precision, reportable range, reference intervals, analytical sensitivity, analytical specificity or other pertinent characteristics. The plan should reflect the system and intended clinical use.
Work with realistic specimens and workflows
Identify study materials, run structure, operators, acceptance criteria and known limitations. Coordinate work that the laboratory's personnel can perform and document using its own system and operating conditions.
Document review and approval
Capture the results, calculations, discrepancies and any needed investigations. Organize a review package that helps authorized technical leadership assess performance and approve implementation as applicable.
A clear process that reduces preventable rework.
A defensible record is built from a realistic plan, not assembled after all the testing is complete.
Clarify the method and intended use
Confirm analytes, instruments, applicable complexity, specimen types, claimed performance, patient population and the distinction between verification and establishment of specifications.
Define a documented protocol
Specify applicable characteristics, sample selection, replication or comparison strategies, acceptance criteria, responsibilities and how outliers will be handled before beginning work.
Review performance evidence
Evaluate recorded observations against the predefined protocol; identify exceptions, additional investigations or clarifications needed for the report and approval decision.
Prepare the operational handoff
Help assemble supporting records, procedures, QC considerations, staff training documentation and a clear handoff to the laboratory director and authorized technical personnel.
Practical questions before a new test goes live.
Can a manufacturer's field specialist perform everything?
Manufacturers can provide useful protocols, training and technical support. The laboratory remains responsible for its applicable verification or validation activities and for review by authorized laboratory leadership.
Does every method need the same study?
No. Applicable characteristics and study expectations depend on the regulatory pathway, whether a test system is modified, the method, intended use and current requirements. A one-size-fits-all protocol is not a good starting point.
What if our study reveals a performance gap?
The results should be investigated and documented. Depending on the issue, leadership may need to revise the plan, obtain additional data, address the underlying problem or delay routine use until concerns are resolved.
Official reference: CMS guidance on verification of performance specifications. Requirements differ by method and testing context.
Get the protocol, evidence and handoff working together.
Whether you're implementing one instrument or coordinating a multi-platform rollout, tell us about the assay, system, deadlines and technical workload.
Request a Free Laboratory Consultation ↗Review our working approach · Explore mock inspection support