[Histonet] IHC Performance Improvement
Rene J Buesa
rjbuesa <@t> yahoo.com
Mon Feb 9 10:03:55 CST 2009
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.
--- On Sun, 2/8/09, Paula Wilder <histo20 <@t> hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Paula Wilder <histo20 <@t> hotmail.com>
Subject: [Histonet] IHC Performance Improvement
To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 5:26 PM
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!
St. Joseph Medical Center
Towson, MD 21204
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
Histonet mailing list
Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
More information about the Histonet