Paula: Any and every step in the histology workflow can and should have a performance improvement parameter. You refer to IHC repeats as a parameter and in this case, as in any other, the fact of repeating an IHC by itself is not a good parameter unless it is associated with the event that determined the request or need to repeat. It could be that the pathologists (PT) wanted to look at a deeper section, or that the PT expected a reaction of different intensity (either stronger or weaker) than the one seen and wanted to be sure, or even perhaps that the reaction was so outstanding that the PT wanted to have a section for his/her collection, or some other reason. What I am trying to convey is the idea that a "repeat" by itself, without recording the cause of the "repeat" does not constitute a good PI parameter. The cause of the repeat is the one that will determine the follow up steps derived from the PI. René J.
--- On Sun, 2/8/09, Paula Wilder <hist...@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Paula Wilder <hist...@hotmail.com> Subject: [Histonet] IHC Performance Improvement To: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 5:26 PM Hi Everyone! We are looking for new performance improvement parameters. We are currently monitoring IHC repeats. Does anyone have any other suggestions? Any help will be greatly appreciated! Paula Wilder St. Joseph Medical Center Towson, MD 21204 _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_022009_______________________________________________ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet _______________________________________________ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
