The Westgard Rules

What's New: March 2015

Posted by Sten Westgard, MS

Here's what's new on Westgard Web:

Is your lab Empowered?

In January, we were fortunate to have a guest essay by one of the organizers of the EQA monitor program, Empower IVD Globe. A forthcoming editorial in CCLM will soon endorse this program. As this project reaches a critical juncture, we review the reasons why labs need better EQA.

Is your lab empowered, or enfeebled, by its EQA?

 

---

Sigma-metric analysis of two blood gas instruments

It's been a while since we've looked at the Sigma-metrics of any blood gas instruments. There's an interesting study recently published comparing two blood gas instruments to a core laboratory autoanalyzer. When you know the blood gas results are going to be compared to the core lab results, the bias may not be quite as traceable, but it's certainly relevant.

Nova CCX, RapidLab 1265, AU 2700, what's got the better performance?
 

---

Sigma-metrics of a chemistry instrument in Ghana

A 2014 article in the Nigerian Medical Journal assessed the Sigma-metrics of a chemistry analyzer. The results raise serious questions.
When is method performance a problem of logistics and not a problem of the lab? And when does performance preclude accreditation?
 

Pop Quiz: What's the biggest source of errors in a Nigerian QMS?

Posted by Sten Westgard, MS

A recent article about the experience of QMS tracking in a clinical laboratory in Nigeria raised some interesting questions about sources of errors in "developing world" laboratories.

Where would you expect a Nigerian Human Virology laboratory (HVL) to experience the most problems?

• pre-analytical processes
• analytical processes
• post-analytical processes

The answer, after the jump...

Biologic Variation Terminology: I before G, except separate from A

Posted by Sten Westgard, MS

One of the least controversial outcomes of the Milan 2014 meeting on Quality Goals was the agreement to standardize the terminology. That is, make sure when we debate quality goals, at least we're all speaking the same language and using the same terminology.

A Letter to the Editor was published in Clinical Chemistry making the suggestion for the standard terms:

Terms and Symbols Used in Studies on Biological Variation: The Need for Harmonization Simunduc A; Kackov S, Miler M, Fraser CG, Petersen PH. Clin Chem 61:2(2015): 438-439

Without further ado:

• CV_I: within-subject biological variation
• CV_G: between-subject biological variation
• CV_A: analytical variation
• RCV: reference change value
• II: index of individuality

We will be changing over the biologic variation tables we have to conform to the new standards.

 

Q&A: Is the "I" in IQCP "International?"

Posted by Sten Westgard, MS

While traveling in the middle east recently, I was asked by a colleague about the new US IQCP regulations, specifically how to implement them in their foreign laboratory.

Frankly, I was a bit shocked. I didn't realize that anyone outside the US was paying attention to the IQCP roll-out.

But it does raise a good question: Is IQCP a global necessity? Or merely a US idiosyncrasy?

Put your "I" in the IQCP survey

Posted by Sten Westgard, MS

IQCP has been coming for years, but we've very little information about how ready US laboratories are to implement the new policy. We want to change that.

We invite, implore, beg, plead with you to take part in our IQCP survey.

It's a short survey, just 11 questions long. Shouldn't take you but a few minutes of time.

If you complete it, you'll  be eligible to receive an IQCP "starter kit" that we're building, as well as attend a webinar we'll be giving soon on how to use these tools. [Note: the webinar is on April 22nd, 2015]

Further, once we get all the responses of the survey in, we'll share the results with the public. Not only do you get a chance to voice your opinion, you'll get to see what other US labs are thinking, too.

So please, put your "I" in the IQCP survey.