| What went Wrong with CLIA |
|
|
|
There's a struggle to find the right direction in managing the quality of laboratory testing today. Many people think that the problems with analytical quality have been solved, that it’s time to set a new direction and focus on pre-analytic and post-analytic parts of the total testing process. One of the main causes of degrading quality in laboratory testing is the slow decay of the CLIA regulations - which we chronicle here. (Preview)
Laboratory tests have become a commodity in the healthcare marketplace. By “commodity,” we mean that laboratory tests are now so commonly available from so many different sources that they are evaluated mainly on the basis of their cost, with the assumption that the quality of the test results is the same, regardless of the source of testing. Sources now include commercial reference laboratories, laboratories in hospitals, point-of-care locations, physician offices, community clinics, nursing homes, hospices, pharmacies, health fairs, as well as home-care testing. Given this wide variety of sources of laboratory tests, the assumption that quality is same everywhere is unlikely. In fact, there may be serious During the period of the CLIA-88 regulations, more tests have been “waived,” which means that laboratories can perform those tests without being subject to the minimum standards of quality and Of the remaining laboratories, 20,026 are classified as “compliance labs” subject to CMS inspections. Only 15,957 are accredited by professional organizations that are deemed to have standards at least as demanding as the CLIA standards. From our perspective, it is clear that CLIA has failed to achieve the objective of establishing a uniform quality for laboratory testing in the US and may, in practice, have actually resulted in lower standards of quality than before CLIA. It is now necessary to adopt a better approach, at least for those laboratories that are truly interested in providing quality to their physicians and patients. While we have not been fans of ISO standards (International Standards Organization) in the past, we are starting to believe that the ISO 15189 guideline for medical laboratories [2] may provide the best opportunity for improving the analytical quality of laboratory testing processes today. We recognize this will be a hard sell to many US laboratories, but the following pages will demonstrate how government regulations have failed, how inspection and accreditation programs have failed, and because of these failures, laboratories are now failing to provide the quality needed for critical laboratory tests being utilized in national and international patient treatment guidelines. We will try to substantiate those points in this chapter to convince you that there is a need to improve the analytical quality of laboratory testing.
|
| Next > |
|---|
Member Login
What's New
CLIA
- What went Wrong with CLIA
- EQC = Eliminated QC
- CLIA QC Clearance Postponed Again & Again & Again & Again
- Final5 CLIA Rule 1/24/03
- CLIA QC and Q-less Compliance
- Testing Equivalent Quality: A Better Way
- Final Rule vs Final Word on Quality
- Quality versus the “No Lab Left Behind” Program
- Equivocal QC: Coming Soon to a Laboratory Near You
- EQC, AQC, and FDA QC Clearance: From control to compliance; from compliant to complicit
- 2008: Update on "Alternative QC"





