Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said:

something tells me you don’t understand lab results which makes you a poor doctor 

Pointing to systematic testing errors.  Are you suggesting that doesn't happen?  where would we be had Putin died from covid?

Edited by Joe Ferguson forever
Posted
8 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

Pointing to systematic testing errors.  Are you suggesting that doesn't happen?


Very rarely, usually it’s more human error, if my QC is out no patient results are released and previous patients are spot checked and rerun against total allowable error.

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said:


Very rarely, usually it’s more human error, if my QC is out no patient results are released and previous patients are spot checked and rerun against total allowable error.

how rarely is "very rarely"? I'd see it every few months.  perhaps our lab was under par.  I don't think so.

Edited by Joe Ferguson forever
Posted
5 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

how rarely is "very rarely"? I'd see it every few months.  perhaps our lab was under par.  I don't think so.


There are 3rd parties like CAP that send specimens year round for MLS and instruments to run if there is a problem with the instruments that lab will fail the cap survey or if it’s a near miss then an investigation of the instruments will happen 

 

The difference between this 3rd party and you is they have the results and total allowable error 

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said:


There are 3rd parties like CAP that send specimens year round for MLS and instruments to run if there is a problem with the instruments that lab will fail the cap survey or if it’s a near miss then an investigation of the instruments will happen 

 

The difference between this 3rd party and you is they have the results and total allowable error 

they wouldn't be needed were there very rarely errors.  or at least they'd be very rarely needed.  Direct observation by clinicians is an important part of QC.  No doubt that's in some MT handbook.  btw, Obama's killing it in Pittsburg

Edited by Joe Ferguson forever
Posted
2 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

they wouldn't be needed were there very rarely errors.  or at least they'd be very rarely needed.  Direct observation by clinicians is an important part of QC.  No doubt that's in some MT handbook.


You go ahead and find that then best of luck 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said:


You go ahead and find that then best of luck 

If it isn't, it should be.  Pathologists certainly agree, in my experience.  "Dr Smith, is it true that Dr Jones was concerned about potassium levels coming out of your lab and Mr Brown died during that same time period from an arrhythmia associated with abnormal potassium levels?" They don't want that.

Edited by Joe Ferguson forever
Posted
11 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

If it isn't, it should be.  Pathologists certainly agree, in my experience.  "Dr Smith, is it true that Dr Jones was concerned about potassium levels coming out of your lab and Mr Brown died during that same time period from an arrhythmia associated with abnormal potassium levels?" They don't want that.


Hi Doctor as you can see here are the results of the 3rd party CAP survey for Potassium which we passed and here are the QC results for the entire year on that instrument  notice no results were released unless QC passed, here is a G-curve of the patient population. 
 

 

Posted
Just now, Commsvet11 said:


Hi Doctor as you can see here are the results of the 3rd party CAP survey for Potassium which we passed and here are the QC results for the entire year on that instrument  notice no results were released unless QC passed, here is a G-curve of the patient population. 
 

 

great.  you did your job.  And I did y job when i reported strangely elevated K+ levels.  And the pathologist did his job.  Good for us all.

×
×
  • Create New...