I very much agree about the desirability of metrological traceability. But I think your second sentence sets too high a burden of proof.
1 Individual users don't have to be "absolutely sure" or have "complete confidence". This decision follows discussion and an agreed and extended time scale for change. Individual users should now change the way they report as agreed.
2 I then hope that you and others will keep working with the manufacturers and standards bodies to keep moving towards that goal of traceability.
If we're not careful then this will be an instance of the best being the enemy of the good. And we'll fall back towards "consensus" being a substitute for adherence to standards: a trend in our profession which is very worrying.
One big change please by the first of October, then a lot of kaizen.
Jonathan
On 25 Sep 2011, at 15:40, Jonathan Middle wrote:
> Hi
>
> I said in a previous posting that I would report back on my enquiries of manufacturers about their traceability to the IFCC reference system. As frequently asserted in this forum, I feel that users must be absolutely sure about the status of their assay systems so that they can go forward with single IFCC mmol/mol reporting with complete confidence.
------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
Green Laboratories Work
http://www.laboratorymedicine.nhs.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/
|