This is an important question for professionals who rely on accreditation as a benchmark of technical reliability, patient safety, and laboratory competence.
The College of American Pathologists (CAP) accreditation program is widely recognized and respected in laboratory medicine. Its stated objective is to ensure that laboratories meet rigorous quality standards through structured assessments, proficiency testing (PT), and compliance with defined requirements. In principle, accreditation systems exist to safeguard public interest by validating competence, consistency, and reliability of laboratory results.
However, a broader policy question often arises within professional circles:
How transparent are global accreditation systems about enforcement actions such as suspensions or withdrawals due to quality or competence concerns?
Transparency regarding such actions is not merely administrative detail — it is a key indicator of the strength of any oversight system. When enforcement data is visible, stakeholders gain confidence that standards are actively monitored and non-compliance is addressed.
Proficiency Testing and Perception Challenges
Proficiency testing is an essential technical tool for verifying laboratory performance and comparability of results. CAP is internationally known for its extensive PT programs, which are widely used and technically valued.
At the same time, some stakeholders raise a structural question:
When PT participation is closely integrated with accreditation pathways, how does the system ensure that oversight is perceived as fully independent and not commercially influenced?
This is not an allegation — it is a governance question relevant to any accreditation ecosystem worldwide. Many international conformity-assessment frameworks address this by separating accreditation, assessment, and commercial services to avoid perceived conflicts of interest.
Assessment Readiness vs. Continuous Compliance
Another commonly discussed issue across accreditation systems globally (not limited to any single body) is the difference between:
• Pre-assessment readiness
• Post-accreditation sustained compliance
Organizations often invest heavily in preparation before an audit, aligning documentation, training staff, and organizing records. The real test of a quality system, however, is whether those standards are consistently maintained after accreditation is granted.
This raises a universal oversight question:
How effectively do accreditation systems monitor ongoing compliance rather than periodic preparedness?
Why Enforcement Visibility Matters
In modern governance environments, transparency strengthens credibility. Many sectors — finance, healthcare, education — publish performance indicators, sanctions, or compliance statistics. Such disclosure does not weaken institutions; it demonstrates accountability.
For accreditation, aggregated global data such as:
• number of suspensions
• corrective actions imposed
• reinstatements
• appeals outcomes
could help stakeholders better understand how actively standards are enforced.
Constructive Questions for the Accreditation Community
Rather than criticism, the following questions aim to support system strengthening:
• How frequently are accreditations suspended or withdrawn for competence-related reasons?
• Are global enforcement statistics publicly available?
• How is continuous compliance monitored after accreditation is granted?
• What safeguards ensure independence between evaluation and commercial activities?
Final Reflection
Accreditation systems are built on trust. That trust is strongest when stakeholders see not only certificates and logos, but also clear evidence of active oversight and accountability.
Confidence grows when quality assurance is visible — not only promised.
About the Author
Dr. Sambhu Chakraborty is a distinguished consultant in quality accreditation for laboratories and hospitals. With a leadership portfolio that includes directorial roles in two laboratory organizations and a consulting firm, as well as chairman of International Organization of Laboratories ( An ILAC stakeholder organisation), Dr. Chakraborty is a respected voice in the field. For further engagement or inquiries, Dr. Chakraborty can be contacted through email at info@sambhuchakraborty.com and contact information are available on his websites,https://www.quality-pathshala.com and https://www.sambhuchakraborty.com , or via WhatsApp at +919830051583