-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Toop [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 04 December 2006 18:37
To: 'Julian Barth'
Subject: RE: Consensus statement on reporting drugs and poisons
Then use moles! it seem more consistent with the way report other substances
we measure with determined molecular weights and does at least concord with
the number of molecules in solution. Since this decision was made in the
1970s it seems anomalous that drugs were not included at that time. The
important ting is that we all do the same thing and that the units can be
referenced against a valid standard. Otherwise standardization across
organizational boundaries, heuristics based reporting, laboratory input
into national care pathways and a national pathology handbook are going to
be beyond reach for the foreseeable future.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Barth [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 04 December 2006 18:26
To: Mike Toop
Subject: RE: Consensus statement on reporting drugs and poisons
The problem is that grams and moles are both SI units!!
Julian
>>> "Mike Toop" <[log in to unmask]> 04/12/2006 17:05 >>>
Using SI units would seem logical unless there is a rare case where
the
Molecular weight of the substance being analyzed could not be
determined or
it is measured in a bioassay. Snake venom might be an example or
coagulation
inhibition by warfarin. Or the toxicity is due to radioactivity such
as
polonium 210 for example.
Otherwise we should use SI units.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Clinical biochemistry discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julian Barth
Sent: 04 December 2006 16:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Consensus statement on reporting drugs and poisons
Dear Colleagues
Thank you all for your comments about units for reporting drugs and
poisons. It seems that there is no science behind our prejudices but
we
have heard of a death from Tim Reynolds which was due to a
misunderstanding over which units we are using (and indeed there are
further reprots of fatalities in the literature). We have discussed in
the past that medical education is including less and less clinical
laboratory diagnostics and health care preofessionals do not
understand
units of measurement. Who benefits from all our petty squabbling over
two expressions of SI units which are interchangeable. If we don't
agree
to sort this one out, it will be forced upon us and that will be a sad
state of affairs for our profession.
Let me start again, can anyone express a cogent argument for not
standarding on a single system of reporting. If not, can we think
about
how long it will take to educate our individual constituencies so we
can
plan for a change.
Yours
Julian
Julian H Barth MD FRCP FRCPath
Consultant in Chemical Pathology & Metabolic Medicine
Department of Clinical Biochemistry & Immunology
Leeds General Infirmary
Leeds LS1 3EX
tel 0113 392 3416
fax 0113 392 5174
Editor-in-Chief, Annals of Clinical Biochemistry,
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/acb
------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/
------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/
|