Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
(Or, if only some surveys are based on accuracy, then what are the other surveys based on?)
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
There's an article that appeared in the October 2010 issue of CAP Today that probably didn't get enough attention. It covers a subject that's been gnawing at us for a while:
Accuracy-based Surveys carve higher QA Profile, by Anne Paxton
For those of you who thought all proficiency testing was "accuracy-based", this article may give you a bit of a shock. In fact, most PT surveys - indeed most EQA programs and even peer-group programs - are not based in accuracy. Instead, those surveys are only based on "consensus."
What's the difference, What does it mean - and how did it come to be this way?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Earlier, we posted an article on the website with a darkly humorous take on the passing of the CLSI EP22 guideline, which voted itself out of existence in late 2010. Other websites have also noted its passing.
But it's worthwhile to take a moment to discuss, in all seriousness, where we are with Risk Information, Risk Management, "Equivalent QC", and the CLIA Final Rules. How did we get here? What drove us to this state? Where are we going next?
-----
We see the Bail Outs of the bankers and wall street. We see the cutbacks and austerity of governments in Greece and Ireland as their governments struggle to make good on the debts run up by their out-of-control banks.Private risks made into Public losses.
But is the laboratory immune from the problem of "Too Big to Fail"?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
The National Oil Spill Commission released a preliminary chapter of its report today. This is the commission charged with finding out what went wrong with the Deepwater Horizon / Macondo oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that blew up in 2010 and spilled 4 million barrels of oil and killed 11 workers.
Whenever there are big stories in the media, we like to take a look at them to see if we can learn anything, find any connection between the disaster and our own situation in the medical laboratory community. But from a distance, it's hard to see any similarities between oil rigs and labs, right?
Right?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Sten Westgard, MS
Is it time for a tighter quality requirement for glucose meters?
Fresh on the heels of Dr. George Klee's review of setting performance specifications, as well as the recent FDA public meeting on glucose meter quality, Dr. Klee and Dr. Brad Karon of the Mayo Clinic and Dr. James C. Boyd of the University of Virginia recently published a study that used simulation modeling to determine performance criteria for glucose meters:
"Glucose Meter Performance Criteria for Tight Glycemic Control Estimated by Simulation Modeling", Brad S Karon, James C. Boy, and George G. Klee, Clinical Chemistry 56:7; 1091-1097 (2010)
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Alan Greenspan gave some instantly notorious testimony to the US Congress recently:
“I was right 70 percent of the time, but I was wrong 30 percent of the time,”
I'm not sure what was more concerning; the fact that he admitted that almost a third of the time he was wrong, or that he clearly believes that being right only 70% of the time was acceptable. Clearly, for a man once called "The Oracle" and Maestro, he was lowering the bar on the standards for judging him.
Testimony like that raises some instant questions:
- If Alan Greenspan was responsible for setting the direction of the world's greatest economy, is a 30% error rate acceptable?
- If Alan Greenspan was an airline, would you fly him?
- If Alan Greenspan was a core laboratory test, would you buy the instrument?
- If Alan Greenspan was a glucose meter, would you buy the device?
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard
This month, Dr. Westgard was teaching his spring semester class for the University of Wisconsin Medical Technology school. He likes to use recently published papers in the scientific literature as a way to relate his lessons to things happening in the "real world" of the laboratory.
This semester, he has written up a number of lessons covering HbA1c methods, performance, and quality requirements based on the article in Clinical Chemistry, Few Point-of-Care Hemoglobin A1c Assay Methods Meet Clinical Needs, by David E. Bruns1 and James C. Boyd and a study by Lenters-Westra and Slingerland (Six out of eight hemoglobin A1c point-of care instruments do not meet the generally accepted analytical performance criteria. Clin Chem 2010;56:44 –52.)
For your convenience, here are the lessons in order...
-----
In the January editorial of Clinical Chemistry, Few Point-of-Care Hemoglobin A1c Assay Methods Meet Clinical Needs, by David E. Bruns1 and James C. Boyd, there’s a key paragraph that goes beyond the HbA1c methods covered by the study by Lenters-Westra and Slingerland (Six out of eight hemoglobin A1c point-of care instruments do not meet the generally accepted analytical performance criteria. Clin Chem 2010;56:44 –52.)
“There is increasing recognition of a need to improve the precision of HbA1c assays, in view of the low biological variability of Hb A1c. The NGSP plans to reduce the
acceptability specification for level 1 laboratories to 0.70% and for manufacturers of all Hb A1c methods to <0.75% in 2010 (http://www.ngsp.org/ ngsp/prog/News/manuf09.html; accessed October 28, 2009). The College of American Pathologists (CAP) also has recognized the need to tighten total error criteria for Hb A1c and is in the process of
revising the criteria used in grading proficiency tests (http://www.
ngsp.org/ngsp/prog/News/manuf09.html; accessed October 28, 2009). In 2007,
the limit specified by the CAP for acceptability on HbA1c proficiency testing was +/- 15% of the target value. This limit was lowered to +/-12% in 2008 and to +/-10% in 2009, and it will be lowered to +/-8% in 2010 and to +/-6% in 2011. “
As these quality requirements tighten, how are we going to respond?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS