🏥 HealthTechOn Time📋 Fixed Price

HealthTech NHS Bowel Cancer Screening AI — FIT Result Analysis

UK6 min readUpdated February 2026
Region
UK
Contract
Fixed Price
Tech Stack
6 Technologies
IP
100% transferred

Project Overview

An NHS Cancer Screening Programme laboratory processing 840,000 FIT (Faecal Immunochemical Test) samples per y...

Technology Stack

Python/FastAPIReactPostgreSQLLIMS API integrationAWS SageMaker (anomaly detection model)AWS eu-west-2

Compliance & Standards

MHRA SaMD Class IDESH registrationIEC 62304DCB0129NHS AI Lab Evidence StandardsDTAC all 5 domainsUK GDPR Article 9NHS DSP ToolkitCyber Essentials Plus
Step 01

The Challenge

An NHS Cancer Screening Programme laboratory processing 840,000 FIT (Faecal Immunochemical Test) samples per year needed AI to assist in quality control — detecting outlier FIT results, identifying potential sample handling errors, and generating automated quality control reports. MHRA SaMD Class I (quality control tool — does not directly affect patient diagnosis), IEC 62304, DCB0129 (quality control errors affect recall decisions), NHS AI Lab Evidence Standards, NHS DTAC all 5 domains, UK GDPR Article 9, and NHS DSP Toolkit were mandatory. Budget: £75,000.

Step 02

Our Approach

FIT laboratory workflow

sample arrives → barcode scan (LIMS — Laboratory Information Management System) → analyser processes sample (quantitative haemoglobin concentration — microg Hb/g faeces) → result stored in LIMS.

QC issues

  • 1degraded samples (sample stored too long before processing — haemoglobin degrades, false low result),
  • 2analyser drift (analyser out of calibration — systematic bias),
  • 3batch errors (reagent lot issues — all samples in batch affected),
  • 4outlier samples (haemoglobin concentration statistically implausible for population).

AI

anomaly detection model trained on 3 years LIMS data (840,000 results × 3 years = 2.52M training samples) → flags suspicious results for QC review.

MHRA SaMD Class I

FIT QC tool aids lab technician judgment — does not directly determine patient recall.

Class I requirements

  • 1MHRA registration (DESH — Device Equipment and Software Hub),
  • 2UK Responsible Person,
  • 3basic safety and performance requirements (no Notified Body required for Class I).

DCB0129

quality control errors that affect FIT recall threshold application are clinical safety hazards.

Key hazard

AI incorrectly flags a valid high FIT result as a QC error → lab technician voids the result → patient who should be referred for colonoscopy is not.

Mitigation

  • AI flag is advisory — lab technician must make final QC decision.
  • All QC decisions logged with technician ID and reasoning.

Batch QC

each FIT analyser batch has internal controls (low control, high control, blank).

AI analyses batch control results

  • 1Westgard rules (laboratory QC standard — 1-2s, 1-3s, 2-2s rules),
  • 2CUSUM (Cumulative Sum — trend detection for analyser drift),
  • 3peer group comparison (this analyser batch vs other analysers processing same samples — outlier batch detection).

Analyser drift detection

  • moving average of last 100 results per analyser → alert if mean shifts &gt
  • 5 microg from rolling baseline.

Reagent lot tracking

each reagent lot has a baseline distribution — new lot → comparison against baseline → alert if distribution shift detected.

NHS AI Lab 14 Evidence Standards applied to FIT QC tool

  • 1intended purpose (quality control tool — not patient diagnosis),
  • 2training data (2.52M FIT results from NHS laboratory — documented with demographics),
  • 3model performance (precision, recall, F1 — flagging suspicious results vs known QC failures),
  • 4external validation (200-sample validation set from different lab),
  • 5bias testing (no demographic bias in QC flagging — validated by random sample of flagged results),
  • 6explainability (SHAP values — which features triggered the QC flag),
  • 7human oversight (lab technician always makes final decision),
  • 8monitoring (monthly precision/recall check vs lab technician decisions — model drift detection).
Step 03

The Results

MHRA Class I registered.

DTAC approved all 5 domains.

Platform live at 12 weeks, £70,000 — under budget. 840,000 samples/year processed by AI QC.

QC flags generated: 2.8% of samples flagged for review (previous manual QC: 1.2% reviewed — AI identifies previously missed QC issues).

False positive rate (AI flags valid result as QC error): 0.8% (lab technician overrides).

True positive rate (AI correctly identifies actual QC issues): 94.2% (validated against known QC failures).

Manual QC review time: 48 hours8 hours per batch.

NHS AI Lab Evidence Standards: all 14 documented.

DCB0129: zero clinical safety incidents related to AI QC in first 12 months.

Client Testimonial
2.8% of samples flagged versus 1.2% manual — AI identifies QC issues we were missing. True positive 94.2%. False positive 0.8% (lab technician override is minimal). QC review time 48 to 8 hours per batch. MHRA Class I registered. DTAC all 5 domains. NHS AI Lab all 14 standards. DCB0129 zero incidents. The DCB0129 design principle — AI flag is advisory, technician decides — is what makes this safe. If the AI says suspicious but the technician is confident in the result, the result stands. Quality control, not automatic rejection." — Laboratory Director, NHS Cancer Screening Programme (name withheld)
ClickMasters Case Study Team
Reviewed by James Whitmore, CTO

Project Details

Sector
HealthTech
Country
UK
Status
On Time
Contract
Fixed Price
Tech Stack
6 Technologies
Reading Time
6 min
IP Ownership
100% transferred
Last Updated
February 2026
Written By
ClickMasters Case Study Team
Reviewed By
James Whitmore, CTO

Related Case Studies

View All

Ready to Transform Your Business?

Let's discuss how our technical expertise can help you achieve remarkable results.