Today's Problems Survey

Question Title

* 1. Do your policies/processes/procedures include clear directions to tell staff when quality fails and they must stop reporting?

When Sigma < 3.0

When Sigma < 2.0

When SEc < 0.0

When ME < 1.0

When ME < 0.0

We do not have defined directions of when to stop.

Stop? I have never seen us stop reporting.

Other or Comment

	That's ridiculous	Makes no sense	OK some times	Makes sense	Nobody does that!
to use the same Q.C., no matter how good or bad a test is?	to use the same Q.C., no matter how good or bad a test is? That's ridiculous	to use the same Q.C., no matter how good or bad a test is? Makes no sense	to use the same Q.C., no matter how good or bad a test is? OK some times	to use the same Q.C., no matter how good or bad a test is? Makes sense	to use the same Q.C., no matter how good or bad a test is? Nobody does that!
Other (please specify)
that different labs use different Q.C. for the same method?	that different labs use different Q.C. for the same method? That's ridiculous	that different labs use different Q.C. for the same method? Makes no sense	that different labs use different Q.C. for the same method? OK some times	that different labs use different Q.C. for the same method? Makes sense	that different labs use different Q.C. for the same method? Nobody does that!
Other (please specify)
to assess patient quality with samples that may not mirror patients?	to assess patient quality with samples that may not mirror patients? That's ridiculous	to assess patient quality with samples that may not mirror patients? Makes no sense	to assess patient quality with samples that may not mirror patients? OK some times	to assess patient quality with samples that may not mirror patients? Makes sense	to assess patient quality with samples that may not mirror patients? Nobody does that!
Other (please specify)
to assume that any Q.C. process works, without verification?	to assume that any Q.C. process works, without verification? That's ridiculous	to assume that any Q.C. process works, without verification? Makes no sense	to assume that any Q.C. process works, without verification? OK some times	to assume that any Q.C. process works, without verification? Makes sense	to assume that any Q.C. process works, without verification? Nobody does that!
Other (please specify)
to control acceptable patient quality without defining what is acceptable?	to control acceptable patient quality without defining what is acceptable? That's ridiculous	to control acceptable patient quality without defining what is acceptable? Makes no sense	to control acceptable patient quality without defining what is acceptable? OK some times	to control acceptable patient quality without defining what is acceptable? Makes sense	to control acceptable patient quality without defining what is acceptable? Nobody does that!
Other (please specify)
to use unreferenced Q.C. processes that differ from recommendations?	to use unreferenced Q.C. processes that differ from recommendations? That's ridiculous	to use unreferenced Q.C. processes that differ from recommendations? Makes no sense	to use unreferenced Q.C. processes that differ from recommendations? OK some times	to use unreferenced Q.C. processes that differ from recommendations? Makes sense	to use unreferenced Q.C. processes that differ from recommendations? Nobody does that!
Other (please specify)
that front line staff with <10 hours QC education make most decisions?	that front line staff with <10 hours QC education make most decisions? That's ridiculous	that front line staff with <10 hours QC education make most decisions? Makes no sense	that front line staff with <10 hours QC education make most decisions? OK some times	that front line staff with <10 hours QC education make most decisions? Makes sense	that front line staff with <10 hours QC education make most decisions? Nobody does that!
Other (please specify)

That's ridiculous

Makes no sense

OK some times

Makes sense

Nobody does that!

to use the same Q.C., no matter how good or bad a test is?

to use the same Q.C., no matter how good or bad a test is? That's ridiculous

to use the same Q.C., no matter how good or bad a test is? Makes no sense

to use the same Q.C., no matter how good or bad a test is? OK some times

to use the same Q.C., no matter how good or bad a test is? Makes sense

to use the same Q.C., no matter how good or bad a test is? Nobody does that!

Other (please specify)

that different labs use different Q.C. for the same method?

that different labs use different Q.C. for the same method? That's ridiculous

that different labs use different Q.C. for the same method? Makes no sense

that different labs use different Q.C. for the same method? OK some times

that different labs use different Q.C. for the same method? Makes sense

that different labs use different Q.C. for the same method? Nobody does that!

Other (please specify)

to assess patient quality with samples that may not mirror patients?

to assess patient quality with samples that may not mirror patients? That's ridiculous

to assess patient quality with samples that may not mirror patients? Makes no sense

to assess patient quality with samples that may not mirror patients? OK some times

to assess patient quality with samples that may not mirror patients? Makes sense

to assess patient quality with samples that may not mirror patients? Nobody does that!

Other (please specify)

to assume that any Q.C. process works, without verification?

to assume that any Q.C. process works, without verification? That's ridiculous

to assume that any Q.C. process works, without verification? Makes no sense

to assume that any Q.C. process works, without verification? OK some times

to assume that any Q.C. process works, without verification? Makes sense

to assume that any Q.C. process works, without verification? Nobody does that!

Other (please specify)

to control acceptable patient quality without defining what is acceptable?

to control acceptable patient quality without defining what is acceptable? That's ridiculous

to control acceptable patient quality without defining what is acceptable? Makes no sense

to control acceptable patient quality without defining what is acceptable? OK some times

to control acceptable patient quality without defining what is acceptable? Makes sense

to control acceptable patient quality without defining what is acceptable? Nobody does that!

Other (please specify)

to use unreferenced Q.C. processes that differ from recommendations?

to use unreferenced Q.C. processes that differ from recommendations? That's ridiculous

to use unreferenced Q.C. processes that differ from recommendations? Makes no sense

to use unreferenced Q.C. processes that differ from recommendations? OK some times

to use unreferenced Q.C. processes that differ from recommendations? Makes sense

to use unreferenced Q.C. processes that differ from recommendations? Nobody does that!

Other (please specify)

that front line staff with <10 hours QC education make most decisions?

that front line staff with <10 hours QC education make most decisions? That's ridiculous

that front line staff with <10 hours QC education make most decisions? Makes no sense

that front line staff with <10 hours QC education make most decisions? OK some times

that front line staff with <10 hours QC education make most decisions? Makes sense

that front line staff with <10 hours QC education make most decisions? Nobody does that!

Other (please specify)

Today's Problems

What do you think and do?

Question Title

* 1. Do your policies/processes/procedures include clear directions to tell staff when quality fails and they must stop reporting?

Question Title

* 2. Does this make sense to you?

Question Title

* 3. What other problems do you see with lab Q.C.?