We know how to change QC frequency in a data-driven, evidence-based, patient-risk focused way. But we don't seem to be doing it at all.
Clinical Laboratory News June 2019 issue had an article about QC Frequency. Dr. Westgard was interviewed for that article, plus here are some additional extras that support the piece.
Total Error. Total Analytical Error. Total Allowable Error. There are a number of terms in use about errors, and it appears that a recent editorial from Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine has mistaken what the meanings of these terms are. Another popular concept right now is the "Brain-to-Brain" loop. How does Total Analytical Error interface with the Brain-to-Brain Loop? Are the two approaches in conflict or complementary?
There is an oft-quoted maxim for the restaurant business, that only three things matter: location, location, location. In a similar vein, medical laboratories trying to assess method performance and analytical quality need to focus on three things: data, more data, and still more data.
Several recent studies assert they have calculated the rate of error in laboratories, pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical. But what those numbers mean depends on what's being counted and who's doing the counting.