NACB - Scientific Shorts
NACB - Scientific Shorts (formerly NACB Blog)
By Patricia Jones, PhD, DABCC, FACB
PermalinkRecommendFacebookEmailComments
The NACBLOG Editorial Board extends a sincere thanks to all of you who have written for, commented on, recommended, and read the NACBLOG posts of this past year. In its first year the NACBLOG had more than 50,000 hits and readers included scientists from around the world. Our weekly discussions touched on practical issues such as vitamin D testing and glycemic control, called attention to regulatory issues such as RUO/IOU, presented thought provoking views on clinical laboratory testing, and challenged readers with monthly case studies. Blogs on the Jurassic Lab and Hemoglobin A1c generated the most comments but we discovered that generally, the longer a post was up, the more "recommends" it got. We assume this is the result of new readers going back to previous entries.

A few changes are in store for 2012. The NACBLOG will remain open to all but after the first of the year you’ll be asked to login, which means your name and affiliation will automatically be added to any comments you submit. I’m happy to announce that three Fellows—Bill Winter, Roger Bertholf, and Doug Stickle--will be regular contributors to the blog next year.

In closing, as we wait to bring in the New Year, I invite you to reflect on the issues and changes that 2012 may usher in. What do you think 2012 has in store for the laboratory profession?

 

 

Please log in to leave a comment!

Posted by
On 12/29/2011

My greatest hope for 2012 is that this will be the year that laboratories make measurable progress to close the QC Gap – that foolish and frightening chasm that exists between QC theory and QC practice in most labs. I have been harping on this theme since 2006. Technical processes have advanced light years since 1950, and yet most labs are still using some lopsided variation on the old 1-2s rule. Every study I have done, course taught, poll or quiz conducted continues to confirm a frightening misunderstanding and misguided application of QC theory. If you are interested in details of these studies and articles, or want to test your own QC Gap, you can see more at www.awesome-numbers.org or in the new course in the AACC online university http://www.aacc.org/events/online_progs/certificates/qcgap/Pages/default.aspx# . The next time you are frustrated by chasing QC flags that mean nothing, or failing a PT survey when QC looks just fine – ask yourself “Is there a better way to do QC?” Look around the internet and you’ll soon find studies that prove the financial as well as clinical benefits of improved QC design. Let’s make 2012 the year that QC catches up with technical advances in medical labs and close The QC Gap! Happy New year! Zoe Brooks zoe@awesome-numbers.com