Hmm. Seems to be some misunderstanding here. I don't have a problem with
unlabelled, unbagged, samples being thrown out. What I do have a problem
with is the strict adherence to protocols saying a sample should not be
used, where a sample is usable but less than ideal and where the analysis
would yield useful information, particularly if one takes a bayesian type of
approach to the interpretation of all the information available in a
particular case.
As far as litigation is concerned, adherence to protocols, where the
protocol is inappropriate to the situation and the professional involved
could be reasonably expected to know that, can be just as negligent as not
adhering to the protocol in a situation where the protocol is appropriate.
For example; suppose your lab protocol says all glucose samples have to be
in fluoride oxalate. Request from a psychogeriatric ward comes in for
glucose. Sample is in a plain tube. Clinical information "Confusion". Do you
or do you not analyses the sample? (Do not scroll down instantly. Say yes or
no to yourself)
The Glucose was 60 mmol/l. She was in hyper osmolar coma. And you didn't do
it. Want to read up on the law on gross negligence manslaughter? ..... In
fact it wouldn't come to that but there is a definite civil liability issue
there.
Robert Forrest
A R W Forrest LLM, FRCP, FRCPath,
Professor of Forensic Toxicology
University Dept of Forensic Pathology
Medico-legal Centre
Watery Street
SHEFFIELD
S3 7ES
UK
Voice +44 (0)114 2738721
Fax +44 (0)114 279 8942
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|