THANK YOU FOR SUBSCRIBING
Pharma Tech Outlook | Saturday, February 26, 2022
In the clinical laboratory, “Quality” refers to the standard of one lab’s results matched to others. Usually, every lab or test system can be made more efficient, and labs seeking a good quality standard will need to engage in ongoing process evaluation and improvement.
Good quality is equal to reputation; it takes a lot of time to build, but it can be ruined instantly.
Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.
What is the difference between sound quality and poor quality? A good quality (GQ) test system will create very few adverse events, errors, regulatory failures, etc. Contrarily, poor quality (PQ) will result in more adverse events and losses, ultimately needing to be remedied.
Costs of good quality
Maintaining a GQ test system obtain costs associated with the prevention of adverse effects and test system review. Some examples include:
● Staff training: Staff must be professional to carry out their roles effectively, as well as implement cost-saving practices, such as accuracy in work, reduction of waste, etc.
● Equipment maintenance: Equipment and instruments should have preventive care to avoid potential downtime.
● QMS(Quality Management System): The QMS should be continuously reviewed and optimized. Labs should maintain abreast of the belated developments in QMS and adopt new process development strategies.
● Regulatory body approval: Labs can pay for a test system audit by a recognized regulatory body. Attaining accreditation is proof of the lab’s commitment to quality.
Costs of poor quality
While the costs connected with GQ are incurred to prevent potential issues, charges of PQ are incurred as a result of test system failure. GQ costs are relatively simple to anticipate and account for, so PQ costs can be more complicated. For example, PQ costs can come from internal or external sources:
● Continuous testing: The most apparent issue with PQ is the need to re-test both QC and patient samples when errors are detected. This can be very complicated to do in the case of patient samples and has the added effects of increased cost and reduced patient/physician confidence in the lab’s results.
● Failure analysis: This includes troubleshooting and root cause analysis. Labs may spend many resources determining the root cause of an adverse incident and implementing systems to prevent reoccurrence.
When we equate GQ and PQ, it is clear that costs associated with GQ are much simpler to forecast and plan for, whereas PQ costs are far more scenario-dependent. Both GQ and PQ have related costs, but the key difference is that labs will spend money on GQ practices and waste money correcting issues arising from PQ practice a crucial distinction.
“A stitch in time saves nine” is a statement often used in medicine and healthcare, and it also applies to quality in the laboratory. Preventing adverse incidents is preferable to implementing corrective actions once an issue occurs.
The cost of PQ is unstable and often substantial. It endures reasoning that the more logical approach would be to invest heavily in GQ practices, ultimately lowering the risk of suffering the significant implications of PQ.
More in News