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.
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard
While Dr. Westgard has given a thorough update on the status of EP22 and EP23, as presented at the AACC/ASCLS conference in Washington, DC, and Dr. Jan Krouwer has done the same on his own blog, I thought it worth beating the dead horse on this.
Dr. Jan Krouwer was there at the presentation and asked perhaps the most important question about EP22 since it was created. Is the FDA going to review the Risk information created by manufacturers about their instruments?
I think the answer was somewhat nuanced and subject to interpretation. According to Dr. Krouwer, he heard that the FDA would review EP22 Risk information, but only superficially, and "only egregious problems would be flagged by the FDA."
Basically, I heard the same thing, with a slightly different interpretation: the FDA isn't really going to review the Risk information when the device is first submitted to them. But retrospectively, it might review them very thoroughly. Since the FDA has authority over labeling and branding of medical devices, if it turns out that some of the risk information from a manufacturer is incorrect, inaccurate, or misleading, than the FDA retains the power to sanction the manufacturer.
In other words, manufacturers have the right to remain silent (i.e. don't produce any Risk information, since EP22 is voluntary), and anything they say (i.e. the EP22 Risk information) can be used against them in a court of law.
Call it the Manufacturer's Miranda Risk Rights.
In the absence of a legal mandate, I don't see why any manufacturer would willingly create this Risk information and distribute it to their customers. Any corporate lawyer will be advising against it (liability exposure). Any marketer will argue against it (if our competitors aren't saying they have residual risks, why do we need to do so?). Any executive will oppose it (why are we exposing our weaknesses to our competitors and our customers?). And that's the just the internal opposition this will face.
Certainly, I believe disclosure of Risk is the right thing to do, but the competitive and legal environment are not going to be receptive to it. Unless customers overwhelmingly demand this information, manufacturers will have no incentive - and many disincentives - to produce Risk information.
As Dr. Krouwer laments, there is a lot of good work in the EP22 and EP23 guidelines, but because of the toxic environment, these standards are likely to be stillborn.
Yet another sorry milepost in the story of EQC, AQC and Option 4. -----
Sten Westgard, MS
The game of accreditation agencies hasn't changed much over the last 40 years: Joint Commission, CAP, COLA. Laboratories didn't have many other choices.
Now there's a new kid on the block.
CMS recently approved DNV Healthcare as a new hospital accreditation organization. DNV's hospital accreditation program has met all the CMS requirements to deem hospitals in compliance with the Medicare Conditions of Participation. The DNV program is called NIAHOSM (National Integrated Accreditation for Healthcare Organizations). [ DNV stands for Det Norske Veritas which is a Norwegian-based company that provides accreditation, certification, risk management and other services to many industries. What is it about Scandinavians, quality, and regulations?]
What's more interesting than just the entry of a new player into the accreditation market is their approach. NIAHO is not another compliance-oriented program - participation in this accreditation program requires the hospital to seek and achieve ISO 9001 certification. So hospitals will have to be accredited by NIAHO and certified in ISO 9001.
Here's the schedule DNV proposes for accreditation and certification:
- Year One: NIAHO Accreditation Survey and ISO 9001 Pre-assessment Survey
- Year Two: NIAHO Accreditation Survey and ISO 9001 compliance or Certification Survey
- Year Three: NIAHO Accreditation Survey and ISO 9001 Periodic Survey
- Year Four: NIAHO Accreditation Survey and ISO 9001 Periodic Survey
- Year Five: NIAHO Accreditation Survey and ISO 9001 compliance or Re-Certification Survey
- Year 6 through Year 8 and Beyond: Continue to repeat Year 3 through Year 5.
DNV will conduct annual unannounced surveys on hospitals. That's a significant change right there.
DNV's NIAHO is different than CAP's nascent ISO 15189 program. CAP is offering an ISO certification on top of the usual certification. That is, you have to do the usual CLIA-based certification, but you can add ISO 15189 on top of it. If you choose DNV Healthcare, you'll have to seek ISO 9001 certification as part of the process. Compliance alone is not a DNV option.
We have yet to see what kind of specific laboratory rules DNV Healthcare will provide. As with a lot of the ISO standards, specifics are often hard to find. Many ISO standards provide broad goals without technical specifics, leaving it up to the managers to adapt and apply the rules. Will there be Checklists? Tracers? Something else? So far, we don't know.
Obviously, whatever DNV Healthcare applies will have to be in compliance with CLIA regulations. But how will ISO 9001 and CLIA minimums mix? Will DNV require more from hospitals and laboratories than JC or CAP?
The even bigger question is - will DNV Healthcare compete on cost, quality or another feature? The cynic in us wonders if more competition will drive down prices and possibly sacrifice quality. The optimist in us thinks it would be interesting to see an accreditation body make excellence, instead of compliance, its competitive strategy.
Stay tuned. -----
After some follow-up, we need to note that DNV Healthcare has only been deemed by CMS for accrediting hospitals. They did not get deemed status for laboratory accreditation.
by Sten Westgard, MS
Updated 11/7/08
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?
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Dr. Westgard had the pleasure of taking part in the Bio-Rad industry workshop on July 17th, which was focused on Quality Control for the Future - Risk Management EP23 for Laboratories.
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
We knew that the accreditation agencies needed to develop their own policies to handle the new CMS IQCP regulations. CAP gets the prize for being first out of the gate with some practical steps, as well retaining some safeguards for quality.
IQCP, if it's not already burned into your head, stands for Individualized Quality Control Plan, and this is supposed to be the replacement for the EQC policies which have been in place for several years. The EQC policies are being replaced, you may recall, because they are scientifically untenable. It was hoped that IQCP was going to be more scientifically robust. That remains to be seen. CAP is attempting to assure that it will implement the CMS IQCP regulations but also provide a higher level of quality assurance than that low bar.
More after the jump.
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Another shoe has dropped in the regulatory world. Recently, CDC/CMS issued their "how-to" guide for IQCPs, CAP dropped their checklist for IQCPs, and now the other major deemed accreditor has put out their IQCP guidelines: The Joint Commission.
So what is JCI doing about IQCPs? Join us after the jump
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
With sincere thanks to Carolyn Maurer, the Director of the CAP 15189 program.
As the new IQCP regulations kick in, it's been interesting to see the international reaction to them.
I admit that I thought the IQCP impact would be contained within the US, that contagion would not spread to the international community. After all, IQCP is only a required option for labs within the US, and then only required for labs that seek to find a replacement to their now-outdated EQC policies. For labs that don't want to reduce their QC frequency below once a day, there's no need to create an IQCP at all.
But the situation appears to be more complicated. CAP, which has a significant international presence, is rolling out IQCP to all of its members, not just its US customers.
In light of that, I asked CAP how it balances the IQCP reduced QC frequency with the ISO 15189 standards. Their answers, after the jump...
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
The news hasn't been getting any better over at Theranos. Since the Wall Street Journal pierced the facade on Theranos' promise of revolutionizing the lab test industry, there have been additional stories that Walgreens is seeking an exit from their partnership, that some of their premier clinical partners, Intermountain Healthcare and Cleveland Clinic, have not even started work on any validation studies with Theranos technologies, and that Capital BlueCross has put a stop to Theranos blood-drawing at the insurer's retail store in Pennsylvania.
But that's nothing compared the release of the full, but redacted, CMS inspection report of Theranos' Newark, California laboratory.
Earlier, we had seen the top sheet of the report, noting five major violations that meant Theranos was putting its patients in "immediate jeopardy."
The full report, more than 121 pages long, is as bad an inspection report as I have ever seen. More explanation of this, after the jump...
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
My esteemed colleague, good friend, and keen-eyed tracker of all things regulatory. Dr. Sharon Ehrmeyer, alerted me to a HUGE change in US regulations.
In April CMS sent out a memo title "Policy Clarification on Acceptable Control Materials Used when Quality Control (QC) is Performed in Laboratories"
This memo may contain as big a shift in regulatory policy as IQCP was to EQC. More, after the jump...
-----