Randox Testing Services (RTS) were hit by employees manipulating forensic results. So far, it may affect 10,500 specimens. It’s going to cost RTS £2.5M to retest specimens the police sent them. That’s on top of what they paid to UKAS to provide accreditation “assuring” the quality of their services.
A company like Randox might think of extending its own QC services to compete with the sham ISO 17025 scheme. If only it could get past the other gang members in the ISO, IAF and co.
We’ve been watching the evidence accumulate that shows most disasters are ISO-certified disasters. Oxebridge reports on them often. While paying the ISO 9001 tax may be declining (why else would ISO fudge the figures?), agri-food and bioscience remain big growth area for UKAS accreditation.
In the next phase people are going to find out the role of the ISO cartel in making everyone think these devices were safe.
explains why expectations should be lowered for personalized medicine. If you’ve waited weeks for a GP appointment you may already be questioning the potential of personalized medicine. Is it just a wheeze to boost academic careers? How often will it make a difference for ordinary patients?
Hardly any work has been done to investigate how the imposition of ISO 15189 on pathology labs has improved patients’ lives. Is the “quality” achieving faster or more certain diagnoses? Is it curing more patients or reducing suffering? Why is nobody measuring this when so much effort and money is being poured into supporting the inspectorate that cannot prove its worth?
To think about it, replace “patient” in Senn’s diagram with “lab” and “drug” with “accreditation”.
Why are no evaluations available for the effect of accreditation on laboratory improvements?
Why do labs have to do endless measurements of limited value while there is no similarly demanding measurement of inter-assessor variation?
Why are assessment between assessment bodies kept secret? Labs need to know if they’ve paying money to a body that’s got lots of non-compliances – because they’re precluded from choosing one from a different country.
Read Senn’s article to see why it is so difficult to reach firm conclusions about the effects of treatments. Many clinical studies get it wrong.
For ISO accreditation, no studies get done. It would be challenging to test accreditation meaningfully. Yet still the confidence trick remains widely-accepted.
00:33, 25 November 2018
00:37, 25 November 2018
Britain’s biggest ever forensics scandal has deepened with a third scientist now under suspicion of tampering with test results.
laboratory worker has been questioned by detectives investigating the
potential doctoring of more than 10,000 blood sample results.
has led to innocent motorists losing their licences after being wrongly
convicted of drink and drug driving and may have resulted in children
being wrongly removed from their parents.
The laboratory worker has been
questioned by detectives investigating the potential doctoring of more
than 10,000 blood sample results [File photo]
the two previous men arrested, the latest suspect worked for both
Trimega and Randox Testing Services where the alleged manipulation of
toxicology tests for police and social services is believed to have
taken place over many years.
widening of Operation Churchill – the codename for the criminal
investigation – was revealed last week by Justice Minister Lucy Frazer.
Manchester Police are undertaking an ongoing, expansive criminal
investigation into alleged manipulation of toxicology results now by
three individuals who were employed at Trimega and later Randox Testing
Services after Trimega’s liquidation in 2014 and this matter is being
treated with the utmost seriousness,’ she said.
‘As the police are now treating all
results obtained by Trimega between 2010 and 2014 as unreliable, and
because Trimega provided toxicology testing for civil and family court
cases, it is possible that some civil cases may have been affected by
Mrs Frazer said that at
least one family court case has been reopened because it was based on a
fabricated Trimega test. The Mail on Sunday has established that it
involves a father forced to undergo a hair alcohol test in 2011 as part
of divorce proceedings.
It has led to innocent motorists losing their licences after being wrongly convicted of drink and drug driving [File photo]
to the inaccurate findings, he was ordered not to drink when he saw his
child. But when the forensics scandal emerged and the sample retested,
the order was altered at Worcester County Court in June.
Mail on Sunday revealed last year that 10,000 cases were being
re-examined due to fears about the reliability of Randox tests. The firm
is having to pay the estimated £2.5 million cost for other forensics
firms to retest samples that are considered unreliable.
Crown Prosecution Service has informed a number of motorists over the
past year that their convictions have been set aside or that they will
not have to face trial.
Britain’s biggest ever forensics
scandal has deepened with a third scientist now under suspicion of
tampering with test results [File photo]
spokesman for Richard Silver Solicitors in Manchester said it was
handling several Randox cases. ‘Following retesting, one of these cases
has just been dropped by the prosecution,’ he said. ‘Had we not spotted
the issue, the motorist would have been disqualified from driving and
faced a heavy fine.’
Police confirmed that the third man had been interviewed under caution
in February and that the two previous suspects, aged 47 and 31, remained
on police bail.
Randox said it was
unable to comment on an ongoing police investigation, but added that it
had agreed to cover the cost of retesting ‘as a matter of good faith’.
When the assessors visit they want to see that masses of statistical work has been done to demonstrate the uncertainty of your measurements. ISO 17025 requires it. Assessment gang members have additional guides on it. Customers who just wanted test reports find uncertainty confusing.
Oxebridge reports the IAF’s claim that 93% of its customers have transitioned to its 2015 standards.
Click and read the analysis of data that shows they’re lying.
The panic transitioning looked better than simply lying about the figures as they do now.
While UKAS demands calculations of uncertainty of measurement that are often time-wasting and unnecessary, none of the cartel members are being pressed to deal honestly with the corrupted statistics they use to promote their publishing and inspection businesses.
The Boston doctors investigated over 4 million patient outcomes in this retrospective observational study.
“US hospital accreditation by independent organizations is not associated with lower mortality, and is only slightly associated with reduced readmission rates for the 15 common medical conditions selected in this study. There was no evidence in this study to indicate that patients choosing a hospital accredited by The Joint Commission confer any healthcare benefits over choosing a hospital accredited by another independent accrediting organization.”
It’s not run by the ISO gang but the idea is similar. The Joint Commission dominates the marketplace and its inspections focus on structural factors and processes rather than the outcomes that matter.
Let’s hope for more studies like this exposing multimillion dollar rip-offs.
No time to read the paper? Medscape has a shorter summary here.
"They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good."
Choruses from "The Rock" (1934)
ABOUT THIS BLOG
ISO accreditation claims to make systems good. In fact, it only makes them inspectable. It is another imposition of misguided management that has made working life inefficient and stressful. It treats professionals like schoolchildren on daily report. It is like living out someone else's personality disorder. The EU endorses and, in some cases, enforces it.
Accreditation involves an inspection body in the international "quality" cartel telling employees elsewhere exactly how to do their jobs - the accreditor's own one-size-fits-all "management system". Accreditors have twisted their victims' jobs into collecting exhaustive records for inspectors to quibble about. They've renamed bureaucracy "quality." And increased costs by maybe a third.
Quality is the magic word that is used to close down any debate of the issue. Despite accreditation having nothing to do with quality as any customer would define it. John Seddon has exposed the mil-spec folly of ISO 9000. But ISO management standards for laboratory services are ISO 9000 on steroids.
Professionals submit thoughtlessly to a creeping and flawed argument from the authority that the ISO's enforcer, UKAS, has assumed. The argument is, that because of its protected role in the narrow field of measurement and its use of inspectors, UKAS has a legitimate and verified ability to assure quality by inspection.
A few people are beginning to recognise the expense, waste, and failure-to-deliver of this pseudo-science. That record-keeping is not quality. They are realising the difference between product specifications and sinister standards for behavioural control. The importance of value is being rediscovered. The time has come to rip away the cloak of dreariness that has disguised this parasitic system for so long. Many people working under this regime are waiting to have their instinctive suspicions about it confirmed.
This blog investigates the background and effects of the accreditation cult which has been neither properly tested nor proven. Its aim is to prompt readers to expose the results of the error in their own fields of professional expertise. They will see that professional revalidation, Continuing Professional Development and recording-training-as-a-proxy-for-measuring-productivity spring from a similar mindset - the presumption that professional incompetence is normal and that collecting records can correct it.
Will you read on from the oldest posts at the bottom of this blog or continue to suffer the cartel's expansion?