In a recent article in Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, a group over in the UK did an unusual thing - they audited their IQC (internal quality control) practices. The North Thames Audit and Quality Assurance Group use a questionnaire to assess the IQC practices in 54 laboratories in part of the United Kingdom. Here's the specific citation:
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
James O. Westgard, PhD
[Editor's note: this essay contains some discussion of politics]
By Sten Westgard, MS
By Sten Westgard
On November 4th, the Joint Commission issued an interesting press release, titled "Lab Decisions Will No Longer Affect Hospital Decisions."
The specific language of the press release stated:
"Beginning January 1, 2009, under new Joint Commission policy, laboratory accreditation decisions will no longer immediately impact hospital accreditation decisions."
I have subsequently seen comments on a listserve wondering if it's now acceptable for JC-accredited hospitals to have laboratories that fail inspections. The simplistic interpretation of this rule is that laboratory problems no longer impact the hospital. Hospitals can keep running regardless of the state of their laboratory.
But that's not really the case.
I contacted Megan Sawchuk, Associate Director of the Standards Interpretation of the Joint Commission. She elaborated on the new policy and cleared up any ambiguity:
"The December 2008 Perspectives announcement regarding laboratory accreditation decisions has two important elements. One, the Accreditation Committee voted to eliminate the automatic, direct weight of an adverse decision in the laboratory on the hospital. And two, an adverse laboratory decision from The Joint Commission, CAP or COLA will be added to the hospital's Priority Focus Process (PFP) data. PFP data is presently used by The Joint Commission to monitor the hospital's overall performance and prioritize the timing of their unannounced survey in the 18-39 month window. Thus, an adverse decision in the laboratory will significantly increase the likelihood of an earlier hospital survey to assess compliance at the organizational level.
"By using this method, the hospital decision is based on their actual overall performance with consideration of that of the laboratory. This is an improvement over the current process of automatically applying an adverse laboratory decision to the hospital, which assumes an overly simple relationship between the two integrated but separate entities. Noncompliance in the laboratory is often associated with poor performance in the overall organization, but not always. This method also maintains the integrity of the the laboratory as an essential service in the hospital's accreditation decision process."
To be clear: a failing laboratory will still take down a hospital with it. The downward spiral to revocation of accreditation may not be as fast as it used to be. But the usual regulatory process takes time in any case. Inspections generates citations, which require responses, which may then generate additional inspections, additional responses, etc. Immediate action happens very rarely. The Joint Commission retains all the policies and tools they need to come down hard on a lab and hospital. This new policy just gives them a little more latitude.
One last thing: this is a clear admission that many laboratories in America have significant problems. If laboratories were operating perfectly (or even just in compliance) and there weren't any worries about them, we would have no need to decouple their accreditation decisions from the hospitals.
-----
New Download: Sigma-Metrics Tool (and audioconference presentation)
On September 4th, 2008, Dr. Westgard spoke as part of the AACC audioconference on "New Directions in Laboratory QC" - which was subsequently quoted in the Clin Lab News article on Risk and CLIA. We are pleased to make available Dr. Westgard's complete presentation, as well as two Sigma-metrics Charts and instructions on how to use them in QC Design.
Westgard Sigma Analysis: A new direct HbA1c Method
At the 2008 AACC/ASCLS convention, a poster was presented for a new direct enzymatic assay for %HbA1c. How does it stack up against HPLC and immunoassay methods? How do you judge a method when you've got multiple comparison methods and multiple quality requirements?
Interview: Dr. R. Neill Carey (A brief introduction to EP 15)
We were fortunate to get R. Neill Carey, PhD, the chair of the CLSI EP 15 committee, to present and
explain that new standard at the Chicago Method Validation workshop. He also contributed a chapter to the new Basic Method Validation manual on the same topic. But for those who have never heard of EP 15 before, we conducted a short interview with Dr. Carey. This short introduction to EP 15 may pique your interest in this new guideline.
Thinking about Three Sigma: 2 thoughts on troublesome performance
In a previous lesson, we discussed some possible actions to take when the Sigma-metric for a method is higher than Six. But what about those methods with low Sigma-metrics? What do you do when Sigma analysis delivers bad news?
by Sten Westgard, MS
Updated 11/7/08
By Sten Westgard, MS
We got a big dose of "Minnesota Nice" during our workshop in Rochester, Minnesota. The participants were very helpful - some of them showed up earlier than we did and helped set up the table arrangements for the room! There really is a different culture in the midwest, a spirit of kindness and cooperation that you don't always find in states that lack prolonged sub-zero winters.
When you think of Rochester, Minnesota, your first thought might be the Mayo Clinic. While we were very happy to have many Mayo Clinic attendees, the workshop was actually hosted by the Olmsted Clinic. That's the other hospital in Rochester: