Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
IQCP Survey Results
More than 400 labs responded to our survey of IQCP readiness. The results weren't pretty. The biggest finding? More than 90% of US labs haven't completed a single IQCP yet. This, after nearly a year and a half of the "educational period" gone and only about six months remaining before IQCP takes effect. Labs are rapidly running out of time. Furthermore, most labs only plan to assign one staff person and expect to have no budget for training or development of IQCPs. Does this sound like a recipe for success?
Read the survey results of over 400 US labs
Download the ChartPack of the Survey Results
And while the survey was focused on US labs, a fair number of labs outside the US responded. There are some key differences we found between labs inside and outside the US. Namely, the foreign labs working on IQCP are better prepared and are devoting more resources to implementation, even though they aren't facing the CLIA regulatory mandate to implement them! Are we going to see the best IQCP implementations outside the US?
Read the survey of over 50 non-US labs
Finally, we let respondents share their unfettered opinions in open free-form text. (In other words, we asked them how they really feel). Luckily, almost all the responses were printable, and most of them were eye-opening. If you think you've read too much about IQCP, you haven't heard enough from the labs that have to implement it.
Labs Talk Back! Sounding off on IQCP
CMS / CDC release a new Step-Skip-Step guide to IQCP
A few weeks ago, CMS finally released their most complete document yet about IQCPs. This wasn't a memo or a brochure, but an actual "step-by-step guide." We were enthused about this publication until we began reading it and noticed that a major step has been skipped. The Risk Assessment section no longer contains any actual Risk Assessment.
How could this happen? What does this mean?
Does the new CMS CDC Guide to IQCP mean labs don't need to purchase EP23[tm]? Or do any real risk assessment?