Early replies (many thanks) are indicating the same
misgivings that we have, with the Roche Cfas Calcium
change.Many good thoughts,especially regarding the one
standard and water zero.Trouble is, in this day of
regulation,CE marking,traceability etc. we are being asked
(forced) to make a change the outcome of which we know not to
be in the best interest of the patient.(No-one jumps off a
cliff just because they're told to!) Try justifying an
alternative to the assigned calibration value to CPA - not
that easy in reality.It is one thing to arrive at that
situation, quite another to retrain countless GPs into
understanding that 2.07 mmol/L is no longer
hypocalcaemia.Please keep those thoughts coming in and we can
revisit Roche with the strength of feeling about this.
Phil
***************************************************************************
This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or
distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its
contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you
for your co-operation.
***************************************************************************
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
|