[Histonet] RE: Instrument Verification

joelle weaver joelleweaver <@t> hotmail.com
Thu Apr 3 18:51:54 CDT 2014 

I do understand and sympathize with the situation in many clinical labs with staff , sometimes barely enough to do the work and it is challenging to keep up with expanding documentation also.  I would like to meet the GLP, but do struggle to be as extensive in my documentation. I do try to get as close to the ISO standards as possible, just to cover myself. I agree with Elizabeth's post that this seems to be the direction CAP has been heading over the years.  
I think that if you get new instruments, methodology, technology they will certainly want to see the more robust documentation. For example ( see the current CAP today on IHC validation), this will surely be the "guideline" of tomorrow....
But for those older, in long use instruments and technology,  my opinion is that if you have documentation in line with what the checklist stipulated when it went into use, and also all PM, maintenance, and QC- and have documented any corrective actions, this will probably "fly" for now? What does everyone else think? 




Joelle Weaver MAOM, HTL (ASCP) QIHC
 
> From: liz <@t> premierlab.com
> To: mward <@t> wakehealth.edu; robinsoc <@t> mercyhealth.com; tbraud <@t> holyredeemer.com; histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:16:58 -0600
> CC: 
> Subject: [Histonet] RE: Instrument Verification
> 
> Hello All
> 
> Coming from a GLP environment this type of equipment validation is standard in our setting.  This is just my opinion but I think the CAP checklist is moving towards the type of equipment documentation that is already required in a GxP or ISO environment.  I always thought that instrument qualification (IQ) - operational qualification (OQ) and process qualification (PQ) or simply stated IQ/OQ/PQ were used only in GxP settings but you now see some of the larger clinical labs running these types of validations on their equipment and processes.  To me it does make sense that some type of equipment validation should be required whether it  is a two page document on the microtomes, waterbaths, etc. or complete IQ/OQ/PQ's  on major pieces of equipment such as tissue processors, immunostainers and IHC retrieval units.  I believe that all of these are important processes that should be completed in histology laboratories today.    We are a GLP compliant lab and every single piece of equipment is calibrated and validated as designated in our Master Validation Plan.  IHC stainers and retrieval units should be validated, even our refrigerators and freezers are calibrated and validated.  Our pipettors are calibrated quarterly, and any piece of equipment that generates a weight or temperature is calibrated yearly.  
> 
> For example if you do not validate your IHC retrieval units how can you really tell if they reach the temperature that they are programmed to reach, does the temperature stay consistent through the retrieval process, did it retrieve for the time programmed?  The only way to determine this is to perform a validation.  How do you troubleshoot problems if you do not know if your instruments are performing to their specification without testing those specifications - that's what equipment validation is and that's why in my opinion its important.  
> 
> Histology laboratories are now responsible for running IHC that directly effects a patients treatment - meaning the numerous therapeutic and prognostic markers we routinely run now.  Validation is an important process especially if you are using image analysis for these markers.  I hate to say it but we better get used to it, because this is not going away.  
> 
> And now the shameless plug -  I will be giving a 90 minute lecture at the Florida State Meeting  https://classic.regonline.com/custImages/240000/241449/FSH2014OnlineProgram.pdf on this exact topic, so if you want to learn how to create a Master Validation Plan and learn how to perform a basic validation or a more detailed IQ/OQ and PQ and to what extent you need to validate a particular piece of equipment -  sign up for the meeting plus there are lots of other great topics being presented too.
> 
> Liz 
> 
> Elizabeth A. Chlipala, BS, HTL(ASCP)QIHC
> Premier Laboratory, LLC
> PO Box 18592
> Boulder, CO 80308
> (303) 682-3949 office
> (303) 682-9060 fax
> (303) 881-0763 cell
> liz <@t> premierlab.com
> www.premierlab.com
> 
> March 10, 2014 is Histotechnology Professionals Day
> 
> Ship to Address:
> 
> Premier Laboratory, LLC
> 1567 Skyway Drive, Unit E
> Longmont, CO 80504
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu [mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Martha Ward-Pathology
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 1:22 PM
> To: Cynthia Robinson; Terri Braud; histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> Subject: [Histonet] RE: Instrument Verification
> 
> I'm with you.   There really appears to be no value to this particular requirement.    I would only be concerned with it if I had just purchased it, or moved it into our lab from another location.
> 
> 
>  
> Martha Ward, MT (ASCP) QIHC
> Manager
> 
> Molecular Diagnostics Lab
> Medical Center Boulevard  \  Winston-Salem, NC 27157 p 336.716.2109  \  f 336.716.5890 mward <@t> wakehealth.edu  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu [mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Cynthia Robinson
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 3:03 PM
> To: Terri Braud; histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> Subject: [Histonet] RE: Instrument Verification
> 
> I agree with you in that CAP is just looking for things to change and doesn't seem to be considering the change and decrease in staffing seen in clinical settings. Cryostat validation? Really....cut a slide after you have cleaned and pm'd the thing and go on. Good grief...I don't need any more paper and documentation on routine processes. As for tissue processors, I have 20 year old VIP's that have been running and producing specimens acceptably. I did validate them prior to being put in use but we didn't document like we do now. And I don't see the need to do it at this stage of use. We did do a very extensive validation on the Peloris we put into use last year and will going forward on new equipment.  To me the daily QC of stain should provide our 'validation' of the process and include the processor. I am interested in others thoughts as well.
> 
> Thanks for allowing me to rant.
> 
> Cindi Robinson, HT(ASCP)
> Mercy Medical Center-Sioux City
> Dunes Medical Laboratories
> 350 W Anchor Drive
> Dakota Dunes SD 57049
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu [mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Terri Braud
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 1:00 PM
> To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> Subject: [Histonet] RE: Instrument Verification
> 
> I just received my midcycle CAP and for cryostat validation, we are planning to cut and stain a piece of frozen tonsil and have the path sign off on it. For the tissue processors, we will run a one minute test program. I hope this will fly.  Is it just me, or is CAP insanely out of control with new or modified regulations and policies for AP?  
> 
> Terri L. Braud, HT(ASCP)
> Anatomic Pathology Supervisor
> Holy Redeemer Hospital Laboratory
> 1648 Huntingdon Pike
> Meadowbrook, PA 19046
> Ph: 215-938-3676
> Fax: 215-938-3874
> 
> 6. Validation of cryostat (Gloria Tharp)
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 09:59:26 -0500
> From: "Gloria Tharp" <gtharp <@t> pcasoutheast.com> Could anyone tell me how you are handling the new CAP ANP.23045 question on function and verification of equipment regarding a cryostat.
> Gloria Tharp, BA, HTL(ASCP)
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 15:26:17 +0000
> From: "Leann M. Murphy" <LMurphy2 <@t> aultman.com> How is everyone validating the tissue processor for new CAP ANP.23045 question on function and verification of equipment?
> LeAnn Murphy
> Aultman Hospital
> Canton, Ohio
> ************************
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
> 
> This E-Mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it was sent. It may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential, and the use or disclosure of such information may also be restricted under applicable federal and state law. If you received this communication in error, please do not distribute any part of it or retain any copies, and delete the original E-Mail.
> Please notify the sender of any error by E-Mail.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

More information about the Histonet mailing list