MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1985451152 · doi:10.1309/lmbvbpwkz1ylnzgz

Living in Quality

2009· article· en· W1985451152 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucia M. Berte

Notice bibliographique

RevueLaboratory Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueQuality and Supply Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésQuality (philosophy)ChemistryEnvironmental sciencePhilosophyEpistemology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I take a lot of ribbing about how I eat, sleep, and breathe my “quality sermon” to anyone who will listen. And the critics are right in that I eat restaurant food, sleep in hotel beds, and breathe dry stale airplane and meeting room air to deliver my message. You know, having a passion for one’s profession is critical to one’s happiness and success; therefore, I apologize neither for my passion nor for my sermon. In the plenary session, “Simply Powerful QMS,” at the CLSI meeting this past April in Philadelphia, Dr. Michael Noble, from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, showed a visual that summarized the part of my quality sermon where I make a plea for laboratories to just get out there and get started on the road to quality management. He calls it the “Quality Management Ladder to Success.” The visual depicts an upright ladder with “Awareness” at the ground level and “Achievement” above the top rung. The middle rungs are labeled with the increasing states of quality management system implementation, described as follows (used with permission): Quality management is not quality control nor is it simply a new name for quality assurance. Quality management is a systematized approach for managing the quality of any organization’s processes, products, or services. As experienced laboratory professionals, we know about quality control and understand the role of quality assurance in laboratory activities. However, quality management has a significantly bigger body of knowledge that one must start to absorb. Therefore, the first rung of the ladder is learning about quality management systems and how they apply in your laboratory. Once one has learned about the elements of quality management—which include document control, management of nonconforming events, and process validation, among others— one must start doing these activities in the laboratory. Only the latest approved versions of all documents are readily available to staff where they work. Every unexpected event and complaint is documented and investigated because these events reveal problematic laboratory processes. And every new or changed process—whether or not it includes testing—is validated as performing as intended before being used in the live environment. On this next rung up the ladder, your laboratory has to do these things as part of quality management. Quality management processes and procedures need to be integrated into the staff’s work routines so that they are performed as part of doing laboratory work. For example, assignments are made for the equipment maintenance schedule and staff is expected to perform their assigned maintenance duties according to the schedule by fitting them into their daily work—no excuses. In another example, every person is responsible for communicating that it’s time to reorder a supply or reagent because the minimum stock level has been reached—and not wait for “someone else” to do it. Integrating quality management activities into the responsibilities of every staff person is the next rung up the ladder. Quality management tools and techniques used in business and industry are applicable in the laboratory environment. Consider the impact that the Toyota Lean Production Process is having on laboratory sample receiving and processing and on the movement of surgically-removed tissues through the histopathology and pathologist examination processes. Have you ever thought of using a control chart to track the daily temperatures of your laboratory’s temperature-controlled equipment so that there is one uniform tool used across the entire laboratory? What about process flowcharts, FMEA, and cause-and-effect diagrams? The next rung up the ladder is to use quality management tools and techniques at every available opportunity in laboratory work. When people understand and do their respective work processes and procedures, integrate quality activities into their personal work routines, and use tools to continuously measure and monitor performance, only then can it be said that the laboratory is living in quality. This is proved by providing objective evidence that everything that needs to be done to meet requirements was done, on time, with acceptable results or followup as necessary. Only then will your laboratory have hit the top rung and achieved living in quality. Critics or not, I’ll continue to eat, sleep, breathe, and live this quality management message so that your laboratory can make its best contribution to the patients we serve. This Month’s Quality Quote: “There is a ladder. The ladder is always there, hanging innocently, close to the side of the wreck.” —Adrienne Rich, Diving into the Wreck

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,076
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,254

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,011
Communication savante0,0150,010
Science ouverte0,0010,014
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0760,014

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,291
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLaboratory MedicineMême sujetQuality and Supply ManagementTravaux en français237 207