Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
In the recent issue of Clinical Chemistry, an editorial reviews the current state of Vitamin D testing: "There is common agreement that 25-OHD is a 'difficult' analyte."
25-Hydroxyvitamin D: A Difficult Analyte, Graham D. Carter, Clin Chem 58:3; 486-488 (2012).
At the same time, the editorial notes that marked process is being made:
"Nevertheless, results submitted to the international Vitamin D External Quality Assessment (DEQAS) have shown a gradual reduction in interlaboratory imprecision (CV) in recent years - from >30% in 1995 to 15% in 2011."
The question is, is that reduction in imprecision good enough? Or is the quality required by Vitamin D still too "difficult"?
More after the jump...
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Heads up. There's a new abbreviation in town: IQCP
Can you guess what IQCP means?
- Information Quality Certified Professional
- Individualized Quality Control Plan
- Intelligent Quality Control Plan
- Incoherent Quality Control Plan
- Ill-conceived Quality Control Plan
The answer, after the jump...
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
So we all know that Risk Analysis is coming to laboratories in the US. (click here if this is news to you). But Risk Analysis, particularly the FMEA technique (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis), is not new to healthcare. Outside the laboratory, plenty of healthcare practitioners have been performing FMEA.
So what do they think about this technique? Try and guess which one of these responses is from a someone in healthcare:
- "The jury's still out on the FMEA process because... has anybody evaluated FMEA as a tool for analysing risk? And it turns out there isn't... well why are we doing this process?... When all it is doing is bringing a few things to the surface, which is no bad thing, but it's not a validated process."
- "...Forget FMEA. It doesn't really work effectively, I don't think, and the scores are a hindrance rather than anything else, year... We wasted a lot of time on FMEA before we realized, this isn't actually working. Yeah, because I think you can get caught up on just the score, that's the thing."
- "The scoring in the FMEA teams need to be the same people, if you change half way through because of the highly subjective interpretation things change dramatically."
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
[Hat-tip to the AACC Point-of-Care listserve, which first posted a notice about this article]
The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Advisory has a regular electronic newsletter highlighting new science and studies about healthcare safety. Their December 2011 issue has a particularly interesting article for laboratory testing:
Point-of-Care Technology: Glucose Meter's Role in Patient Care, Lea Anne Gardner, PhD, RN, Senior Patient Safety Analyst, Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority.
This review examined more than 1,300 reports of glucose-meter problems from the Pennsyvlania reporting system database from 2004 to 2011. Of those reports, 71 near-miss or adverse event reports occurred. Most intriguing are the report excerpts directly quoted in the study. Of those reports, 72% of the near-miss or adverse events occurred with high-blood glucose results. That is, where the glucose meter had a sudden high value that may or may not have been reflective of the actual patient's clinical state. For example:
"A patient's blood sugar was checked using a [glucose meter]. The lunchtime result was 517. A [blood glucose test] was [immediately] retaken to check for accuracy, and the result was greater than 600. A blood [laboratory] test was conducted per protocol, and the [lab] glucose [result] was 136..."
What do you think happened next?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Now that we know EQC will officially be phased out and instead Labs will have to develop QC Plans through Risk Analysis (as explained in CLSI's new guideline EP23A), some of the waiting is over. EQC, which was fatally flawed from the start, is going to go away.
However, the exact regulations about QC Plans and Risk Analysis have yet to be written (or, at least, are not yet known by the general public). What makes this more uncertain is that EP23A is only meant as a guideline, and the Risk Analysis approach discussed in the guideline is only meant as a possible example. Risk Analysis is a long-established technique (outside the medical laboratory) and has many different formats and levels of complexity. Even between EP18 and EP23, there are discrepancies between the Risk Analysis recommendations (EP18 recommends a 4-category ranking of risk, while EP23 recommends a 5-category approach).
So while we're waiting for the other shoe to drop (in the form of detailed regulations and accreditation guidelines governing Risk Analysis), we might as well talk about what questions those rules will have to answer...
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Here's an eye-opening report from the Office of Inspector General from the Department of Health and Human Services: Adverse Events in Hospitals: National Incidence Among Medicare Beneficiaries
So what's your best guess on the frequency of adverse events?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
A recent Clinical Laboratory Strategies article:Anchoring POC Quality in Clinical Decision-Making and the related study: Novel analysis of clinically relevant diagnostic errors in point-of-care devices, KM Shermock, MB Streiff, BL Pinto, P Kraus, an dPJ Pronovost, (J Thromb Haemost 2011;9:1769-1775) have an interesting observation about the use of the correlation coefficient to accept method performance.
They looked at Hemochron POC devices, analyzing 1518 paired INRs. The correlation between the POC and laboratory measurements ranged between 0.84 and 0.91.
The authors stated, "Traditional, quarterly, quality assurance studies emphasize correlation analysis." So this study has good news, right?
-----
Laboratory Quality Control Based on Risk Management
Posted by James O. Westgard, Sten A. Westgard
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"?
-----