Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
In the December 2011 issue of Point of Care journal, an interesting study was published:
Preanalytical Errors in Point-of-Care Testing: Auditing Error of Patient Identification in the Use of Blood Gas Analyzers, Natalie A Smith, David G Housley, Danielle B. Freedman, Point of Care, Volume 10: Number 4, December 2011.
The study looked at patient identification errors on a blood gas analyzer in various departments in a hospital. Bearing in mind that this is just one type of pre-analytical error, what do you think the rate was? Given around 100,000 tests, what would you guess as the number of defects?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
[Hat-tip to the AACC Point-of-Care listserve, which first posted a notice about this article]
The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Advisory has a regular electronic newsletter highlighting new science and studies about healthcare safety. Their December 2011 issue has a particularly interesting article for laboratory testing:
Point-of-Care Technology: Glucose Meter's Role in Patient Care, Lea Anne Gardner, PhD, RN, Senior Patient Safety Analyst, Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority.
This review examined more than 1,300 reports of glucose-meter problems from the Pennsyvlania reporting system database from 2004 to 2011. Of those reports, 71 near-miss or adverse event reports occurred. Most intriguing are the report excerpts directly quoted in the study. Of those reports, 72% of the near-miss or adverse events occurred with high-blood glucose results. That is, where the glucose meter had a sudden high value that may or may not have been reflective of the actual patient's clinical state. For example:
"A patient's blood sugar was checked using a [glucose meter]. The lunchtime result was 517. A [blood glucose test] was [immediately] retaken to check for accuracy, and the result was greater than 600. A blood [laboratory] test was conducted per protocol, and the [lab] glucose [result] was 136..."
What do you think happened next?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
A recent Clinical Laboratory Strategies article:Anchoring POC Quality in Clinical Decision-Making and the related study: Novel analysis of clinically relevant diagnostic errors in point-of-care devices, KM Shermock, MB Streiff, BL Pinto, P Kraus, an dPJ Pronovost, (J Thromb Haemost 2011;9:1769-1775) have an interesting observation about the use of the correlation coefficient to accept method performance.
They looked at Hemochron POC devices, analyzing 1518 paired INRs. The correlation between the POC and laboratory measurements ranged between 0.84 and 0.91.
The authors stated, "Traditional, quarterly, quality assurance studies emphasize correlation analysis." So this study has good news, right?
-----
A new study in Clinical Chemistry investigated the errors rates for Point-of-Care (POC) devices:
Can you guess what the error rates were?
-----
(Or, if only some surveys are based on accuracy, then what are the other surveys based on?)
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
There's an article that appeared in the October 2010 issue of CAP Today that probably didn't get enough attention. It covers a subject that's been gnawing at us for a while:
Accuracy-based Surveys carve higher QA Profile, by Anne Paxton
For those of you who thought all proficiency testing was "accuracy-based", this article may give you a bit of a shock. In fact, most PT surveys - indeed most EQA programs and even peer-group programs - are not based in accuracy. Instead, those surveys are only based on "consensus."
What's the difference, What does it mean - and how did it come to be this way?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
In the iconic western film, The Magnificent Seven, there is a famous scene about marksmanship. [Quick set up: The Magnificent Seven are - you guessed it, seven - gunmen hired to protect a peasant village from a much larger group of bandits] Early in the film, the heroic gunmen detect three bandit scouts and want to capture them. In an abrupt exchange of gunfire, two bandits are killed, but the third bandit mounts his horse and attempts to escape. As the bandit flees, one of the gunmen, Britt, steadies his pistol and takes aim. The escaping bandit gallops farther and farther away. But just as he is about to disappear behind a hill, Britt shoots, hitting the bandit square in the back, killing him. The youngest of the gunmen, Chico, shouts:
Chico: (in awe) That was the greatest shot I've ever seen!
Britt: (sternly) The worst! I was aiming at the horse.
This scene reminds us that even when what one person thinks is great performance may not be acceptable by another person's standards. Indeed, what appears like an accomplishment may actually be an error.
And what, you may ask, does this have to do with Six Sigma?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
While we recently got a study that estimated the (frightenly high) number of Adverse Events caused by US hospitals, it looks like other countries are not content to let us stand alone. Now Sweden is doing us one better. Guess what the Adverse Event rate is in one hospital in Sweden?
- 28.2%
- 20.5%
- 6.3%
- 3.32%
Which number would you choose?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by James O. Westgard, PhD
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Now that the age of the IQCP is here, laboratories are grappling with the time and effort it takes to build their Individualized Quality Control Plans. How long should it take to build an appropriate IQCP?
- 40+ hours
- 21-40 hours
- 11-20 hours
- 5-10 hours
- Less than 5 hours?
How much time has it taken for you? How much time do you think it should take?
-----
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Posted by Sten Westgard, MS