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
In the December 2011 issue of Point of Care journal, an interesting study was published:
Preanalytical Errors in Point-of-Care Testing: Auditing Error of Patient Identification in the Use of Blood Gas Analyzers, Natalie A Smith, David G Housley, Danielle B. Freedman, Point of Care, Volume 10: Number 4, December 2011.
The study looked at patient identification errors on a blood gas analyzer in various departments in a hospital. Bearing in mind that this is just one type of pre-analytical error, what do you think the rate was? Given around 100,000 tests, what would you guess as the number of defects?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by James O. Westgard, PhD
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Now that the age of the IQCP is here, laboratories are grappling with the time and effort it takes to build their Individualized Quality Control Plans. How long should it take to build an appropriate IQCP?
- 40+ hours
- 21-40 hours
- 11-20 hours
- 5-10 hours
- Less than 5 hours?
How much time has it taken for you? How much time do you think it should take?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
An important new study was published in the International Journal of Laboratory Hematology, on the QC practices of coagulation laboratories.
But here's a question for you: of all these activities, how many of them occur greater than 90% of the time - and which one doesn't?
- Repeat the QC, and if it passes, report results
- Open [and run] new QC
- Look for trending
- Discontinue testing until controls are within limits
- Repeat all patient samples from the last acceptable QC
To find out which one of the activities occurs at a frequency not like the others, follow the jump...
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
An interesting abstract was published at the Paris IFCC meeting. It detailed the EQA performance of a set of 12 public laboratories in Catalonia. Can you guess what the failure rate for these labs for biochemistry EQA?
- 14.5%
- 14%
- 3%
- none of the above
The answer, after the jump...
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Last month, Advance for the Laboratory published a three part series on Six Sigma in the Clinical Laboratory, written by David Plaut, Nathalie Lepage, and Kim Przekop:
While it's great that Advance has invested in in-depth coverage of the Six Sigma topic, unfortunately one of their examples in part 2 demonstrates a misunderstanding of the application.
See the mistake, after the jump...
-----