In article <000501bf0f5d$06ec7c40$c604fea9@home-computer>, David
Williams <[log in to unmask]> writes
>I and a number of others are in the process of carryin out a major revision
>of CPA's
>laboratory accreditation standards in order to ensure that they do not fall
>short of the ISO
>document 15189 and the relevant parts of ISO 9002.
>
>One of the topics that has cropped up is that of "chain of custody"
>documentation.
In court of law, the defence will try to throw doubt
on the laboratory result.
In particular they will ask whether, at ANY stage from
sample procurement to presentation of results at court,
there could have been any 'tinkering' with the specimen
or with the records.
Therefore the procedure for taking the sample is just
as important as any laboratory procedure.
As far as the laboratory is concerned, you will need
to convince the court that there is NO WAY in which
one of the lab. personnel could have deliberately tampered
with the specimen, as well as showing that there is
NO WAY an accidental specimen mix-up could have occurred.
Also it must be shown that computer records and other records
could not have been tampered with.
This is a tall order.
Dr Robin Marks
Halifax General Hospital, UK
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
/\____/\____/\____/\____/\____/\____/\____
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|