QC Analysis Software with Westgard Rules | Kintavo
MODULE 06 / 19

QC Analysis

Statistical control with alerts before limits are breached.

QC plans with acceptance criteria and trend alerts built in — your QC data watches itself and flags shifts before limits are breached.

✓QC acceptance criteria ✓QC trend review ✓Auto flags ✓Peer comparison ✓Statistical sampling plans ✓Blood component QC
See it in a demo ← All 19 modules
QC Analysis — connected records LIVE
QC-88 QC plan v1.2 · all runs in control IN CONTROL
QC-91 Acceptance criteria failed · run held HELD
QC-92 Repeat run · rule violation cleared RELEASED
PEER-Q3 Peer comparison · 98th percentile REPORT
THE PROBLEM

A QC Failure Caught at Review Time Was Reported for a Week.

QC data captured on paper or in an analyzer silo gets reviewed in batches — daily if the lab is disciplined, weekly if it is busy. A shift or trend that a rule would have caught on Tuesday surfaces at Friday review, after four days of patient results went out on an assay drifting out of control.

The downstream cost is the lookback: which results, which patients, which clinicians to notify. CLIA calls this corrective action; the lab calls it the worst week of the quarter.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

What CLIA, CAP, and ISO 15189 Require From Quality Control

CLIA 493.1256 requires control procedures that detect immediate errors and monitor accuracy and precision over time. CAP requires documented QC review at defined intervals, with corrective action for failures — before patient results are released. ISO 15189 adds trend detection and the use of statistical techniques to monitor performance.

Paper QC logs technically comply and practically fail — rules are applied by eye, trends emerge at review, and the record of what a tech decided at 6 a.m. is a checkmark. Kintavo applies the rules at entry, blocks release on failure, and signs every decision.

WHAT AUDITORS WRITE UP
! QC failures with patient results released before corrective action — the CLIA finding with teeth.
! Acceptance criteria on the SOP but not in evidence at the bench.
! New reagent or control lots in use without parallel testing or range verification.
! QC review signatures that postdate the runs by weeks.
FOR BLOOD ESTABLISHMENTS

Component QC the Way FDA Describes It — Statistically Valid, Not Just Documented

For leukocytes reduced Whole Blood, Red Blood Cells, Plasma, and Platelets, conformance to product standards must be assessed by a statistically valid method under 21 CFR 211.160(b). FDA's pre-storage leukocyte reduction guidance is explicit about what that means: in the absence of a manufacturer's plan, a plan built on 95% confidence that more than 95% of components meet the standard — and FDA will consider plans confirming a < 5% non-conformance rate at that confidence.

Kintavo builds the plan as a record: distribution, window, sample size, allowed failures, and confidence/conformance level are configured up front and locked — because the guidance is equally explicit that sample sizes are pre-determined and fixed. If you plan 94 and see no failures in the first 60, dropping to 60 is not permitted. The system will not let the plan move under you mid-window.

THE SAMPLING PLANS, AS CONFIGURED
BINOMIAL · ONE-STAGE
0 of 60 · 1 of 94 · 2 of 124
Fixed sample, fixed allowance. Conformance on zero process failures in 60, one or fewer in 94, two or fewer in 124.
BINOMIAL · TWO-STAGE
60, then 71 on one failure
One process failure in the first 60 opens a second stage of 71. No further failures, conformance holds. Any more and the plan fails to a failure investigation.
HYPERGEOMETRIC · MONTHLY QC
Sized to the month's population
Finite-population sampling, smaller than binomial — 45 of 100 at zero failures allowed. QC monitoring only; the guidance does not permit it for validation.
PLATELET YIELD · 95%/75%
A separate conformance level
21 CFR 640.24(c) requires an acceptable count in at least 75% of units tested, so yield runs at 95%/75% while residual WBC and pH stay at 95%/95%. Two levels, one plan set.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, PER COMPONENT
COMPONENTRESIDUAL WBCMINIMUM POST-FILTRATION
Whole Blood, LR< 5.0 × 10⁶85% recovery of original content
Red Blood Cells, LR< 5.0 × 10⁶85% recovery of original RBC content
Plasma products, LR< 5.0 × 10⁶N/A
Platelets, LR< 8.3 × 10⁵ per unpooled unit85% recovery of platelet yield, and > 5.5 × 10¹⁰ platelets for 75% of units

Per FDA's September 2012 pre-storage leukocyte reduction guidance, or the device manufacturer's specifications where different. Pooled platelet doses carry < 5.0 × 10⁶ residual WBCs across the pool. Platelets, Pheresis are governed by FDA's separate Collection of Platelets by Automated Methods guidance; configure those plans against it.

PROCESS VS NON-PROCESS — THE DISTINCTION THAT DECIDES THE STATISTICS
Process failure counts
A failure that was avoidable — procedure not followed, or a product or device defect. Incomplete filtration and an out-of-spec residual WBC count are two distinct process failures, and the guidance says to treat them that way.
Non-process failure excludes and replaces
A donor-specific cause — HbS and other traits that block filtration. Classify it and the sample leaves the denominator with a replacement required, exactly as the guidance permits. The classification itself is a signed record, not a spreadsheet note.
Pending classification blocks the verdict
A window with unclassified failures has no final status. Kintavo holds the plan at Pending Classification and states the replacement count outstanding, so nobody reads a conformance result that three open investigations could still reverse.
Flag the donor, not just the unit
FDA encourages flagging the donor record on a confirmed donor-specific failure so subsequent donations can be diverted. The classification carries to the donor, which is how you stop losing the same components every month.
WHAT KINTAVO REPLACES

The old way, retired.

Paper QC logs at each analyzer → One QC system across analyzers, sites, and shifts
Rules applied by eye → Acceptance criteria evaluated at entry, automatically
Failures noticed at weekly review → Rule violations alert the moment they occur
Lot changes tracked informally → Lot-aware ranges with verification before use
Review as a signature ritual → Review queues with exceptions surfaced first
EVIDENCE, NOT CLAIMS

This is the actual screen.

QC Analysis in Kintavo — product screenshot
SHOWN WITH SAMPLE DATA
CORE CAPABILITIES

Criteria at Entry. Not at Review.

QC Plans & Sampling Windows
Plans define what gets checked, how often, and against what criteria — with scheduled sampling windows the bench works from.
Acceptance Criteria at Entry
Your acceptance criteria evaluated the moment a value is entered — a failing result flags immediately, not at weekly review.
Failure Disposition
A failed criterion opens a classified failure record: cause, action, repeat runs, and release decision under signature.
Lot-Aware QC
Ranges established per control lot with parallel testing; a new lot cannot go live without verified ranges.
Instrument Interface & Manual Entry
Values arrive from the analyzer or the bench tablet — with the same rules either way.
Peer & Trend Reporting
Monthly stats — CV, bias, sigma — by analyte and instrument, ready for CAP review.
IN PRACTICE

A Tuesday-morning control value fails its acceptance criteria on potassium. The tech sees the flag at entry — patient results hold for the analyte. The corrective record documents the cause (a failing electrode), the repeat runs, and the supervisor release. The lookback query is never needed, because nothing left the lab on a failed run. Friday review is exceptions only: forty analytes, three minutes.

In a blood center, the August window on leukocytes reduced Red Blood Cells runs a binomial plan: 60 samples, zero process failures allowed, 95%/95%. Two units fail residual WBC. One investigation finds sickle cell trait — classified non-process, excluded from the denominator, replacement required, and the donor record flagged so the next donation is diverted. The other is a filter defect: a process failure, and with zero allowed the window fails to a documented investigation rather than a quiet pass. Neither result posts until both classifications are signed.

NOT A SILO

Part of one connected system.

QC Analysis shares the same data model, AI engine, and audit trail as the other eighteen modules — so its records see, and are seen by, everything else in your quality system.

OPERATIONS Equipment Management Full lifecycle control from qualification to retirement. Explore → OPERATIONS Calibration Tracking Never miss a calibration. Never question your data. Explore → OPERATIONS Training Management Training records that stay current — automatically. Explore →
COMMON QUESTIONS

QC Analysis FAQ

How are QC acceptance criteria defined?

Per QC plan: your team defines the checks, frequencies, and acceptance criteria per analyte or process — including risk-based (IQCP) designs — and the platform evaluates them at entry.

Can QC values come directly from our instruments?

Values enter from the bench on a tablet or via API integration — either way through the same acceptance-criteria evaluation, so the evidence standard is identical.

What happens when a run fails?

The failure flags immediately, affected results hold, and a classified failure record opens: cause, action, repeats, and a signed release decision. Review meetings become exception reviews.

How are new control lots handled?

Parallel testing establishes lot-specific ranges before the lot goes live — the same quarantine-to-release discipline Kintavo applies to inventory.

Does Kintavo support binomial and hypergeometric sampling plans?

Both. Configure the distribution, window, sample size, allowed failures, and confidence/conformance level per plan — 95%/95% for residual WBC and pH, 95%/75% for platelet yield under 21 CFR 640.24(c). Hypergeometric plans are for monthly QC monitoring; the guidance does not permit them for validation.

How are non-process failures excluded from the statistics?

By signed classification. A failure investigated to a donor-specific cause such as HbS is classified non-process, leaves the denominator, and raises a replacement requirement. Until every failure in a window is classified, the plan stays at Pending Classification and reports no final status.

Can the sample size change once a window is open?

No — and that is deliberate. FDA states sample sizes are pre-determined and fixed: planning 94 and dropping to 60 after a clean first 60 is not permitted. Plan parameters lock at activation, and any change is a new plan with its own record.

See QC Analysis run on your workflows.

Bring one month of QC data. Leave with your rules running on it.

Book a Personalized Demo
RELATED For lab directors → All 19 modules → Compare platforms → Pricing → Who runs on Kintavo →