There are days I worry we are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a performance specification. Or that we're all blind men feeling different parts of a great elephant of error and uncertainty. But the latest "round" in the debate is depressingly familiar.
Winchester Hospital of the Valley Health System has summarized the IQCP information from multiple resources and distilled it down to a short primer. Perhaps these are the plans you're looking for.
The official guide to developing IQCPs is finally out! What does it tell us about laboratory implementation of Risk Management for Quality Control? Do we even need the EP[tm] 23A guideline anymore?
Here are more than 120 personal comments from the participants in our Global Measurement Uncertainty Survey. Some labs have no ambiguity about how they feel uncertainty. Here are the responses from all the countries outside the US (more than 85 countries from every civilized continent and region in the world). Believers, Beleaguered, Compliant, and Exasperated - just some of the categories of replies.
In addition to the IQCP survey questions, there was an opportunity for participants to speak directly and openly about their experience with IQCPs. It makes for some interesting reading, to hear the unfiltered responses of laboratorians...
We are pleased to have a guest essay explaining the latest in Method Verification, specifically the newest version of the CLSI guideline EP15 on Method Verification. For labs seeking a quick check to insure their methods are meeting manufacturer specifications, EP15 may be the right choice
CMS took an unusual step on March 13th, 2015. They temporarily withdrew a memorandum they had issued in November 21, 2014 on the Off-Label/Modified Use of Waived Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems (BGMS). But then this withdrawn memo was also reissued as a draft, with additional draft clarifications. What's going on?