Comments for Krouwer Consulting

Comment on EP23 – Again by It means just what I choose it to mean « Krouwer Consulting

It means just what I choose it to mean « Krouwer Consulting — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:39:07 +0000

[...] previously commented that the title of EP23 makes no [...]

Comment on Just because it’s not easy to measure … by Measuring things, again « Krouwer Consulting

Measuring things, again « Krouwer Consulting — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:38:05 +0000

[...] responded to my entry about “Just because it’s not easy to measure …”, which gave me mixed feelings. I am thankful that he acknowledged that his statement was not what [...]

Comment on EP21 and pre-analytical errors by CLSI Evaluation Protocol Area Committee – Tough crowd « Krouwer Consulting

CLSI Evaluation Protocol Area Committee – Tough crowd « Krouwer Consulting — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:44:19 +0000

[...] I responded about a written comment about EP21, this comment was also presented verbally at the AACC meeting in [...]

Comment on Central lines and FRACAS by No free lunches no magic bullets « Krouwer Consulting

No free lunches no magic bullets « Krouwer Consulting — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:44:36 +0000

[...] general hospital example relates to this discussion (previously covered here). The infection rate for placing central lines was about 11 percent. This was a serious problem [...]

Comment on Pay for Performance, Quality, and DB by rcentor

rcentor — Sat, 02 May 2009 18:01:22 +0000

Obviously we really do not disagree. I favor preventable errors, but P4P and its cousins are not about errors, rather about performance goals. Our disagreement really is just semantics.

Comment on Six Sigma can be dangerous to your health by The formal version of “Six Sigma can be dangerous to our health” « Krouwer Consulting

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:22:34 +0000

[...] have previously blogged about this topic, here. Now, a more formal version has been published, first as an online version, here. Due to copyright [...]

Comment on The problem with Joint Commission requirement to perform a FMEA and a suggestion on how to fix it by Alternatives to Six Sigma « Krouwer Consulting

Alternatives to Six Sigma « Krouwer Consulting — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:46:05 +0000

[...] possibility is to have a standards group tackle such a task., although this too has limitations as was shown for a (universal) control measure to prevent wrong site [...]

Comment on About by Darren Magee

Darren Magee — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:02:28 +0000

Congratulations on a fantastic site Jan our members will love this one, lots interested in your area of expertise, our members will learn a lot from this.

Kind regards

The lab rats at CEN

Comment on Software Verification and Validation by Bernard Farrell

Bernard Farrell — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:45:20 +0000

Interesting article.

It’s interesting to me that the FDA focus for medical devices is to ensure they’re safe – that they don’t cause bad things to happen.

Which means that the user interface designs don’t even rate as far as the FDA is concerned. As for connectivity and data standards, they’re not even close to the radar screen.

You might argue that these issues are failures in requirements. But the challenge is that we (the consumers) don’t actually get to specify any requirements. That’s a shame.

Comment on Central lines and FRACAS by FMEA vs. FRACAS « Krouwer Consulting

FMEA vs. FRACAS « Krouwer Consulting — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:36:58 +0000

[...] This is perhaps one of the reasons, one does not hear too much about FMEA successes. As I said before, to say that something that has never happened is now even less likely to happen (due to FMEA) just [...]