Posted by Sten Westgard, MSIt's almost mandatory that any presentation or report discussing patient safety references the landmark IOM report of 2000: To Err is Human - Building a Safer Health System. The takeaway quote from this report is that US hospitals were causing 44,000 to 98,000 deaths that were otherwise preventable. That is, hospitals were causing tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.
A recent paper has attempted to revise that estimate, focusing on Preventable Adverse Events (PAEs) that contributed to the death of patients. Can you guess how lethal US hospitals are now?
4,000 to 10,000 PAEs per year
44,000 to 98,0000 PAEs per year
100,000 to 200,000 PAEs per year
210,000 to 440,000 PAEs per year
The answer, after the jump...
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
The biggest news coming out of the AACC/ASCLS conference in Houston was made by Judy Yost of CMS.
So the new future is IQCP. Remember what that stands for?
It's Quickly Coming to Pass
I've Quit Caring about Performance
It's Quackery, Chaos, and Pablum
I'm Quietly Compromising my Processes
And the answer, after the jump...
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
As we near the annual AACC/ASCLS convention, it's time for our annual contest to rear its ugly head again: The "Westgard Wear" Raffle:
Our annual tradition is to offer visitors to our booth a chance to win a piece of "Westgard Wear":
See more details after the jump...
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
It's that time of year again...
Guess where we're going?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Could your lab catch this error?
A recent letter to the Journal of Clinical Pathology showed an
example of the consequences of missing a lab error for 10 days.
Commendable that this laboratory was willing to share its challenges
with the wider world. But it raises the question, how many labs could
have caught this error? When we widen our limits with larger SDs and
reduce our use of control rules, are we at risk of becoming blind to
medically important errors?
Does this look like an error to you?
From ISO, What's New? Labs must MU!
The latest ISO 15189 version has a new rule. Measurement Uncertainty is no longer optional, it's mandatory.
Do you know how to calculate MU?
Cancer markers on the Vista, Second look
Another chance to review instrument performance on the Siemens Vista.
Back in 2012, we looked a study that assessed the method performance of
cancer markers on the Vista. Now we've found a second study, this time
one that compares method performance of the new Vista with the older
Immulite methods.
Do two studies tell the same story?
Quality Kickstarter: Patient Percentile Monitoring
Would your lab like to join a pilot project that monitors patient 50th
percentiles? A project that would look across labs and manufacturers to
develop a direct, real-time Quality Indicator that would fulfill ISO
15189's requirement for monitoring the quality of analysis of patient
samples?
Looking for a few, good labs willing to share data
-----