We've talked about Westgard Rules for decades, and we've talked about Six Sigma for years. So what happens when we try to talk about both at the same time? Westgard Sigma Rules
On November 24th and 25th of 2014, the first EFLM Strategic Conference on 'Defining analytical performance goals 15 years after the Stockholm Conference on Quality Specifications in Laboratory Medicine' was held. On November 24th, at the end of the first day, a DRAFT consensus was handed out (the DRAFT had in fact been written before the meeting was held). However, the conference organizers later requested that this DRAFT not be shared with the public. Therefore, we will only summarize the contents of the DRAFT. So this is not the real document anymore.
For all its ubiquity in the lab, proper QC isn't easy. Even though every laboratory has to perform Quality Control, that hasn't made the task any simpler. It still relies on the right mean, the right SD, the right control limits, the right rules and numbers of control measurements, and the right interpretation of control data points. If you get one part of this system wrong, it can throw off the correct implementation. Here's an example that was recently published showing the difficulties and challenges of performing proper QC.
Small point-of-care chemistry analyzers continue to enter the market. Is the latest model an acceptable substitute for core lab quality results?
An analysis of 4 different point-of-care (POC) analyzers and one POC device for HbA1c, based on a study published in 2012. The focus of the study was to find practical POC devices that could support faster decision making for the country's large HIV population. The question is, do any POC devices provide adequate quality for that type of clinical care?
- Free Membership (It's Free)
- Biologic Variation Database, the 2014 Update
- IQCP: Does the P stand for Placebo?
- Will Bad Risk drive out Good QC?