Knowella

Proficiency Testing Record

The recurring failure is explaining away an unsatisfactory or borderline result as noise in the scheme rather than evidence about the laboratory. A poor z-score is the one external check most labs get in a year, and treating it as the provider's problem, instead of opening an investigation and reviewing every routine result reported since, means the only independent flag on a systemic error goes unexamined.

KnowQualityRecordQUA-085Pinned in navigation44 fields across 5 sectionsFull researchSee the form

Reviewed by Siddarth SinghCSPLast reviewed 16 August 2026

Basis
ISO 17025 cl.7.7
Workspace
KnowQuality
Form type
Record
Run at
The scheme interval
Completed by
The laboratory lead

The short version

  • A proficiency testing record captures how the laboratory's result compared with an external consensus value, and it is the principal outside check that a method, analyst and instrument combination is actually working.
  • Testing must be done by the routine method and the routine analyst; running the scheme sample under special conditions proves performance the laboratory does not actually offer on real samples.
  • An unsatisfactory or questionable rating requires an investigation into cause and a review of routine results reported during the same period, not just a note that the round is closed.
  • Where the cause is found in the method itself, the record links directly to method reverification, so a proficiency test finding can force a method out of routine use until it is rechecked.

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.

ClauseRequirementWhere it lands
ISO 17025 cl.7.7Participate in proficiency testing or interlaboratory comparisons as a primary means of monitoring result validityHeader
ISO 17025 cl.7.7Test the round using the same routine method and routine analyst the laboratory relies on for real samplesParticipation
ISO 17025 cl.7.7Record the assigned or consensus value against the laboratory's own result for each parameter testedResults
ISO 17025 cl.7.7Rate performance against the scheme's own criteria rather than the laboratory's internal toleranceResults
ISO 17025 cl.7.10Investigate an unsatisfactory or questionable result and identify its cause before dismissing itResponse
ISO 17025 cl.7.10Review routine results reported during the affected period for the same impact once a cause is foundResponse
ISO 17025 cl.7.2Trigger a method reverification where the cause of a poor result implicates the method itselfResponse

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.

International

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.

United Kingdom

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.

United States

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.

Whether 'routine method, routine analyst' was really honoured

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.

How far back to review routine results

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.

Whether a questionable rating needs the same response as unsatisfactory

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.

Whether the root cause is the method, the analyst, or the sample

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.

FindingClauseWhat fixes it
All Results Satisfactory marked Mostly with no individual parameter's Performance Rating recorded below SatisfactoryISO 17025 cl.7.7Require 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 SatisfactoryISO 17025 cl.7.10Restrict 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 ratingISO 17025 cl.7.10Pull 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 happenedISO 17025 cl.7.10Require 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 YesISO 17025 cl.7.2Block 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 roundISO 17025 cl.7.7Allow 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.

44fields
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
Field typesOwn ID, generated on saveCase thread and parentPick list from a registryLinked to another templateFollow up, dashed outlineScored

Header

10 fields
Text

Record ID*

Generated on save

Auto sequence. Format PTR-2026-000.

The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.

Single Choice

Status*

Scored

Drives who this goes to next.

  • Planned2 pts
  • In progress2 pts
  • Complete3 pts
  • Deferred0 pts
  • Open0 pts
  • Closed3 pts
  • Overdue0 pts
Date & Time

Date and Time*

Users

Completed By*

Pick List

Site*

From FDN-001 Site NameFilter: Status is Active
Text

Site ID*

Linked

Format SITE-000.

Links to FDN-001 Site ID

Info

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.

Text

Scheme Name*

Text

Round Reference*

Multi Choice

Parameters Tested*

MicrobiologicalChemicalPhysicalAllergenSensory

Participation

6 fields
Single Choice

Sample Received In Good Condition*

Scored
  • Yes3 pts
  • Marginal1 pt
  • No0 pts
Single Choice

Tested By Routine Method*

Scored

Testing a proficiency sample with extra care proves nothing about routine performance.

  • Yes3 pts
  • No0 pts
Single Choice

Tested By Routine Analyst*

Scored
  • Yes3 pts
  • No0 pts
Single Choice

Submitted On Time*

Scored
  • Yes3 pts
  • Late1 pt
  • Missed0 pts
Users

Analyst*

Text

Method Used

Optional

Results

Repeats6 fields
Single Choice

Parameter*

ProteinFatMoistureSaltAshpHWater activityNitriteHeavy metalsPesticide residueVeterinary residue
Text

Our Result*

Text

Assigned Value

Optional
Numeric Answer

Z Score Or Equivalent

OptionalScored
Single Choice

Performance Rating*

Scored

Satisfactory, questionable or unsatisfactory against the scheme criteria.

  • Satisfactory4 pts
  • Questionable1 pt
  • Unsatisfactory0 pts
Single Choice

Repeat Of Previous Poor Result*

Scored
  • No3 pts
  • Yes0 pts

Response

9 fields
Single Choice

All Results Satisfactory*

Scored
  • Yes3 pts
  • Mostly1 pt
  • No0 pts
Single Choice

Investigation Opened*

Scored
  • Yes3 pts
  • Not required3 pts
  • No0 pts
Single Choice

Cause Identified

Optional

Method, equipment, calibration, analyst technique, calculation, or transcription.

MethodEquipmentCalibrationAnalyst techniqueCalculationTranscriptionNot found
Single Choice

Method Reverification Triggered*

Scored
  • Not needed3 pts
  • Yes1 pt
Text

Verification ID

OptionalLinked

Links to QUA-084 Verification ID

Single Choice

Analyst Retraining Required*

Scored
  • No3 pts
  • Yes1 pt
Single Choice

Routine Results Reviewed For Impact*

Scored

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
Single Choice

Product Impact Found*

Scored
  • None3 pts
  • Some1 pt
  • Significant0 pts
Date & Time

Next Round Due*

Result

13 fields
Numeric Answer

Items Assessed*

Excludes anything marked N/A.

Numeric Answer

Items Failed*

Numeric Answer

Score Percent*

Scored

Calculated on submission. High is good. N/A items leave the denominator.

Single Choice

Result Band*

Scored
  • Pass3 pts
  • Caution1 pt
  • Fail0 pts
Numeric Answer

Completeness Percent*

How much of the template was actually answered. A high score on a half completed form is not a high score.

Single Choice

Action Required*

Scored

Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.

  • No2 pts
  • Yes0 pts
Single Choice

Priority

OptionalScoredShows if Action Required equals Yes
  • High0 pts
  • Medium1 pt
  • Low3 pts
Text

CAPA ID

OptionalLinkedShows if Action Required equals Yes

Format CAPA-2026-00000.

Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID

Users

Action Owner

OptionalShows if Action Required equals Yes
Users

Laboratory Lead*

Signature

Signature*

Users

Technical Manager*

Signature

Second Signature*

QUA-085 · record IDs look like PTR-2026-000 · Links Method verification, CAPA

Open in Knowella

Run 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.

KnowQuality

Holds the proficiency testing register against the scheme calendar, and flags a questionable or unsatisfactory rating that never got its investigation opened.

KnowMaintain

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.

KnowTrain

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.

Ella
Ella

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

Siddarth Singh

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
Verify with BCSP →

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.

Start in Minutes, Not Weeks

Launch a Ready-Made Template and Customize It Your Way

Every template is fully editable. Adjust fields, workflows, and branding to match your processes, then deploy to your team instantly.