What this is
What is a proficiency testing record?
What is a proficiency testing record?
It is the record of the laboratory's participation in a ring trial or proficiency scheme, capturing how its result on each tested parameter compared with the scheme's consensus or assigned value. It is built against ISO 17025 cl.7.7 and forms part of the Laboratory and Testing programme.
Why does an outlying result matter beyond the single round?
The consensus value is the closest independent estimate of the truth the laboratory gets outside its own walls. A result outside it is evidence the method, the analyst or the equipment produced a wrong answer under conditions the laboratory did not control for, which is exactly the kind of error routine internal checks are least likely to catch.
How does a proficiency test differ from an internal quality control check?
An internal check compares a result against a control the laboratory itself prepared and knows the expected value for. A proficiency test compares it against an external, blind consensus set by other participating laboratories, so it tests the whole chain from sampling through reporting in a way internal controls cannot.
Scope
When is a proficiency testing record required?
This record is the external check on results already being produced routinely. Using it to record ordinary sample results, or to document why a method was accepted in the first place, produces a register nobody can query for either purpose.
Use this template when
- The scheme round for a parameter the laboratory tests has arrived and a sample has been received
- A previous round returned a questionable or unsatisfactory rating that still needs its investigation closed
- A new scheme or provider is being added to the laboratory's proficiency testing programme
- An accreditation or customer audit requires evidence of ongoing external performance monitoring
- The laboratory's proficiency testing calendar is being reviewed to confirm every accredited parameter is still covered
Do not use it for
- Laboratory Sample Log, which logs every sample taken for testing, with what it is, why it was taken and where it went.
- Microbiological Result Record, which records a micro result against its specification, with the action taken where it is out.
- Chemical and Compositional Result Record, which records analytical results for composition, additives, contaminants or nutritional claims.
- Laboratory Method Verification, which confirms a method's performance in general on introduction or change, not how it performed against an external consensus this round.
- Out of Specification Investigation, which investigates a routine product result outside specification, not a scheme result outside the consensus range.
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 17025 cl.7.7 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 17025 cl.7.7 requires laboratories to monitor the validity of their results, and participation in proficiency testing or interlaboratory comparison is the principal external mechanism for doing so.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 17025 cl.7.7 | Participate in proficiency testing or interlaboratory comparisons as a primary means of monitoring result validity | Header |
| ISO 17025 cl.7.7 | Test the round using the same routine method and routine analyst the laboratory relies on for real samples | Participation |
| ISO 17025 cl.7.7 | Record the assigned or consensus value against the laboratory's own result for each parameter tested | Results |
| ISO 17025 cl.7.7 | Rate performance against the scheme's own criteria rather than the laboratory's internal tolerance | Results |
| ISO 17025 cl.7.10 | Investigate an unsatisfactory or questionable result and identify its cause before dismissing it | Response |
| ISO 17025 cl.7.10 | Review routine results reported during the affected period for the same impact once a cause is found | Response |
| ISO 17025 cl.7.2 | Trigger a method reverification where the cause of a poor result implicates the method itself | Response |
What it does not cover
- Performance Rating marked Questionable with Investigation Opened left as Not required, which treats a borderline result as though it were satisfactory.
- Tested By Routine Method marked No because the sample was run with extra care, which proves the laboratory can perform well under conditions it never actually offers a customer.
- Repeat Of Previous Poor Result marked No without checking the prior round's rating, which misses the pattern a single round can never show on its own.
- Routine Results Reviewed For Impact marked Partly with no note on which results were excluded from the review, which leaves unreviewed product results indistinguishable from reviewed ones.
- Method Reverification Triggered marked Not needed after Cause Identified names the method itself, which contradicts the one investigation finding that should have forced a reverification.
Global
Proficiency Testing Record requirements by country
ISO 17025 is applied through national accreditation bodies, and in food testing, through regulation that ties a laboratory's standing to demonstrated ongoing proficiency. What counts as an adequate response to a poor round differs by who is asking.
ISO/IEC 17043:2010, referenced by ISO/IEC 17025 cl.7.7
Accreditation bodies expect the schemes a laboratory joins to themselves be run against ISO/IEC 17043, so an ad hoc or unaccredited ring trial does not satisfy the requirement to monitor validity.
Enrolling in a scheme is not enough on its own; the scheme itself has to meet a recognised standard for participation to count as valid evidence.
UKAS accreditation against ISO/IEC 17025 cl.7.7
UKAS assessors check not just participation but the laboratory's response to an unsatisfactory result, including whether routine results from the same period were reviewed for impact.
A filed proficiency test certificate with no investigation behind a poor score is treated as a more serious finding than the poor score itself.
FSMA accredited laboratory programme requirements, 21 CFR Part 1 Subpart R
Laboratories accredited to test under FSMA must demonstrate ongoing proficiency testing participation and satisfactory performance as a condition of continued recognition.
Losing satisfactory proficiency testing performance can affect a laboratory's standing to report results relied on for regulatory compliance, not just its internal quality record.
How to complete it
How to complete a proficiency testing record, step by step
Filling in every field is mechanical. The judgement is in how far a poor round's consequences are traced back into routine work.
Tested By Routine Method and Tested By Routine Analyst are self-declared. Deciding whether the sample genuinely went through the same queue, the same instrument time pressure and the same analyst rotation as a real sample, rather than receiving quiet extra attention, is a judgement the record cannot verify on its own.
Routine Results Reviewed For Impact does not specify a date range. Choosing to review only results reported since the sample was received, versus results reported since the previous satisfactory round, changes how much undetected product risk the review can actually find.
Investigation Opened treats 'Not required' as scoring the same as opening one. Deciding that a questionable rating, sitting between satisfactory and unsatisfactory, still warrants a cause investigation is a call the form leaves to the laboratory lead, not one it enforces.
Cause Identified offers method, equipment, calibration, analyst technique, calculation and transcription as options alongside not found. Choosing the wrong one closes an investigation on paper while leaving the actual defect live in routine testing.
What auditors find
Most common proficiency testing record findings
These are the gaps an assessor, or an internal audit, finds most often in proficiency testing records.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| All Results Satisfactory marked Mostly with no individual parameter's Performance Rating recorded below Satisfactory | ISO 17025 cl.7.7 | Require at least one parameter to be flagged Questionable or Unsatisfactory whenever the overall result is anything less than fully satisfactory. |
| Investigation Opened marked Not required for a parameter rated Questionable rather than Satisfactory | ISO 17025 cl.7.10 | Restrict Not required to rounds where every Performance Rating is Satisfactory, forcing an investigation whenever any rating is not. |
| Repeat Of Previous Poor Result marked No without a check against the previous round's stored rating | ISO 17025 cl.7.10 | Pull the prior round's Performance Rating into the current record automatically so the repeat check is answered from evidence, not memory. |
| Product Impact Found marked None with no evidence the routine results review actually happened | ISO 17025 cl.7.10 | Require Routine Results Reviewed For Impact to be Yes before Product Impact Found can be recorded as None. |
| Verification ID left blank after Method Reverification Triggered is marked Yes | ISO 17025 cl.7.2 | Block closure of the proficiency testing record until the linked method verification record exists and its ID is captured. |
| Next Round Due left as a default scheme calendar date regardless of an unsatisfactory result this round | ISO 17025 cl.7.7 | Allow an unsatisfactory round to trigger an earlier confirmatory round rather than waiting for the standard scheme interval. |
Case in point
Case in point: the drifting instrument a satisfactory rating almost hid
A sodium result came back Questionable, comfortably inside the scheme's tolerance for an overall Satisfactory round, and the laboratory closed it with Investigation Opened marked Not required. Two rounds later the same parameter came back Unsatisfactory, and only then did anyone check whether the first round was a warning.
Tracing it back, a conductivity probe had begun drifting before the first round and was still in routine use for every batch tested in between. Treating the earlier Questionable rating as the trigger it was, rather than as a pass because the overall round looked fine, would have caught the drift two rounds and an unknown number of routine results earlier.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
5 sections
- Reference
- QUA-085
- Archetype
- Record
- Record ID
- PTR-2026-000
- Scoring
- Satisfactory results
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- ISO 17025 cl.7.7
- Links
- Links Method verification, CAPA
- Tags
- Laboratory, Proficiency
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 44
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 3
Header
10 fieldsRecord ID*
Auto sequence. Format PTR-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
An Outlier Is A Finding About You
The consensus value is the reference. A result outside it is evidence your method, your equipment or your analyst has a problem, and treating it as a scheme error wastes the only external check you have.
Scheme Name*
Round Reference*
Parameters Tested*
Participation
6 fieldsSample Received In Good Condition*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Tested By Routine Method*
Testing a proficiency sample with extra care proves nothing about routine performance.
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Tested By Routine Analyst*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Submitted On Time*
- Yes3 pts
- Late1 pt
- Missed0 pts
Analyst*
Method Used
Results
Repeats6 fieldsParameter*
Our Result*
Assigned Value
Z Score Or Equivalent
Performance Rating*
Satisfactory, questionable or unsatisfactory against the scheme criteria.
- Satisfactory4 pts
- Questionable1 pt
- Unsatisfactory0 pts
Repeat Of Previous Poor Result*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Response
9 fieldsAll Results Satisfactory*
- Yes3 pts
- Mostly1 pt
- No0 pts
Investigation Opened*
- Yes3 pts
- Not required3 pts
- No0 pts
Cause Identified
Method, equipment, calibration, analyst technique, calculation, or transcription.
Method Reverification Triggered*
- Not needed3 pts
- Yes1 pt
Verification ID
Links to QUA-084 Verification ID
Analyst Retraining Required*
- No3 pts
- Yes1 pt
Routine Results Reviewed For Impact*
If the method was wrong for the scheme sample, it was wrong for every product result in that period.
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Product Impact Found*
- None3 pts
- Some1 pt
- Significant0 pts
Next Round Due*
Result
13 fieldsItems Assessed*
Excludes anything marked N/A.
Items Failed*
Score Percent*
Calculated on submission. High is good. N/A items leave the denominator.
Result Band*
- Pass3 pts
- Caution1 pt
- Fail0 pts
Completeness Percent*
How much of the template was actually answered. A high score on a half completed form is not a high score.
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Laboratory Lead*
Signature*
Technical Manager*
Second Signature*
QUA-085 · record IDs look like PTR-2026-000 · Links Method verification, CAPA
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The form only proves one round was entered and rated. Chasing every questionable result into an actual cause, and every cause into whatever it should trigger, is the ongoing work.
Holds the proficiency testing register against the scheme calendar, and flags a questionable or unsatisfactory rating that never got its investigation opened.
Tracks the calibration and service history of equipment implicated when a proficiency test cause is traced back to drift, so the connection between the two records is not lost.
Holds the training and competence record behind Analyst Retraining Required, so a proficiency test finding actually closes out against a completed retraining, not just a ticked box.

Coordinates the crew across proficiency testing, method verification and calibration, and holds every write for your approval before it touches a record.
This template lives in KnowQuality — quality and food safety. HACCP, nonconformance, traceability, laboratory and customer complaints.
Meet KnowQuality→Glossary
Proficiency Testing Record definitions and key terms
- Assigned value
- The reference value set by the proficiency testing provider for a round, usually derived from a formulation, a reference method, or the consensus of participating laboratories.
- z-score
- A standardised measure of how far a laboratory's result sits from the assigned value, expressed in units of the scheme's target standard deviation, letting different parameters be judged on a common scale.
- Ring trial / proficiency scheme
- An organised programme in which the same sample, or matched samples, are distributed to multiple laboratories for independent testing, so each laboratory's performance can be compared against the group.
- Satisfactory / questionable / unsatisfactory rating
- The scheme's own classification of a result's z-score or equivalent statistic, distinct from whether the result would have passed the laboratory's internal specification for the same parameter.
- Routine method and routine analyst
- The method version and the analyst or analyst pool the laboratory actually uses for real samples, as opposed to a specially prepared method run or a senior analyst brought in only for the scheme sample.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about proficiency testing record
What is the proficiency testing record template based on?+
It is built against ISO 17025 cl.7.7, which requires laboratories to monitor the validity of their results, principally through proficiency testing and interlaboratory comparison.
What sections does the proficiency testing record contain?+
There are five sections: header, participation, results, response, result. Together they hold 44 fields, 35 of which are required, with the results section repeating for each parameter tested.
How many proficiency testing records should we have?+
This is a singleton per scheme round. One record is set up for each round the laboratory enters, rather than one continuous record covering every round.
Which programme does the proficiency testing record belong to?+
It is part of Laboratory and Testing, which covers sampling, method verification, proficiency testing and the out of specification investigation.
How is a proficiency testing record scored?+
Scoring is satisfactory results, where high is good. The score exists to make the form tell you something about ongoing method and analyst performance, not to produce a percentage for its own sake.
Can the proficiency testing record template be changed?+
Yes. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it. Most teams install it as it is, run it for a cycle, then adjust.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Laboratory and Testing
Maintenance Calibration Record
Records calibration of maintenance instruments such as torque wrenches, pressure gauges and multimeters
Calibration Record
Records the calibration of a piece of test equipment, including standard used, result and next due date
Laboratory Sample Log
Logs every sample taken for testing, with what it is, why it was taken and where it went
Microbiological Result Record
Records a micro result against its specification, with the action taken where it is out
Chemical and Compositional Result Record
Records analytical results for composition, additives, contaminants or nutritional claims
Laboratory Method Verification
Verifies that a test method performs as expected in your hands, on your matrix, before results are relied on
More in Laboratory
Laboratory Sample Log
Logs every sample taken for testing, with what it is, why it was taken and where it went
Microbiological Result Record
Records a micro result against its specification, with the action taken where it is out
Chemical and Compositional Result Record
Records analytical results for composition, additives, contaminants or nutritional claims
Laboratory Method Verification
Verifies that a test method performs as expected in your hands, on your matrix, before results are relied on
Laboratory Environmental Check
Checks laboratory conditions that affect results, covering temperature, humidity, cleanliness, segregation and media storage
External Laboratory Approval
Assesses a contract laboratory for accreditation scope, turnaround, reporting and how it handles out of specification results

Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO/IEC 17025:2017, cl.7.7 — Ensuring the validity of results
- ISO/IEC 17025:2017, cl.7.10 — Nonconforming work
- ISO/IEC 17043:2010 — Conformity assessment for proficiency testing
- 21 CFR Part 1, Subpart R — FSMA accredited laboratory programme
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.