Total quality management to prevent incorrect results and a waste of resources

Incorrect results lead to quality costs because of the repetition of work needed, customer dissatisfaction or eventually financial claims. There is an international trend that laboratories should provide objective evidence of their performance. This can be accomplished by quality assurance and extensive documentation of the work process and, eventually, via a quality system and quality management. Two approaches to standard operating procedures are described and the need for checkpoints, quantified criteria and non-conformance management is discussed. It is also emphasized that harmonization should not be restricted to the laboratory itself, but will also contribute to the quality assurance and comparability of data in inter-laboratory research programmes. The different international standards for quality systems are briefly compared; a few consequences typical for nuclear analytical techniques are given. The advantages and drawbacks of formal accreditation are discussed and examples are given of the scope of accreditation. Finally, a cost-benefit evaluation is given of the development of a quality system and keeping accreditation, as a case study rather than as a general guideline. (author)