Quality Requirements and Standards
The current (2014) discussion on Quality Goals seems a lot like the debate as it stood nearly 40 years ago. To see why current Quality Goal thinking may only be a "revolution" in the most literal sense, read this flashback to the 1970's
After so many presentations, and so many articles, it wouldn't be surprising if readers and laboratorians were confused by the goals of the 2014 Milan Meeting. Here's a quick summary of three top take-aways from the conference.
While Americans were gorging themselves on turkey, assiduously avoiding talking politics with their relatives, slipping into tryptophan-induced unconsciousness in front of the television, an elite group of metrologists, biochemical scientists, and leaders of the quality field were gathering in Milan to discuss a far-ranging series of topics. Oh, and they were also deciding the fate of the laboratory world and how and what analytical quality specifications will be allowed in the future.
The third installment discussing the quality of HbA1c devices in 2014, based on the new study by Lenters-Westra and Slingerland in Clinical Chemistry. In this part, Dr. Westgard looks at data from the second reagent lot tested, as well as provides an analysis using IFCC units and reference methods.
The second installment discussing the quality of HbA1c devices in 2014, based on the new study by Lenters-Westra and Slingerland in Clinical Chemistry. The good news: now 4 out of 7 methods meet the minimum analytical performance. The bad news: that's still 3 of 7 that don't. There's still a lot of room for improvement.