the day the was a body called “Clinical Pathology Accreditation” who
laid down regulations about best practice in the hospital laboratory. They were
superceded by ISO 15189… about which I have ranted in the past.
That ISO 15189 has been revised. There is an article in the IBMS newsletter on the matter which can be accessed by clicking here.
I’ve read it several times now, and (quite frankly) it means absolutely nothing to me at all.
example (and I quote) “During an accreditation assessment, we
anticipate that there will be significant discussion between the laboratory
representatives and the UKAS assessment team regarding how the accredited
organisation has considered…”
“Significant discussion!” – endless meetings that run and run without achieving anything?
And “…there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach…”.
Perhaps the standards might be revised again. And revised in which a way that meeting them is black and white. The standard is met, or it is not. If the standard in question is vague or open to interpretation then it must (not should!) be discarded in favour of one which is not.
I’m getting too old for all of this…