What if quality accreditation is much like radical prostatectomy?
What if it carries risks with few benefits for most accreditation sufferers?
What if only really bad labs are improved by the rituals of accreditation?
What if removing the thinking from the work leads to disfunctionality in labs that were fine?
Professor Duffy says of cancer screening with biomarkers:
“Conclusion: Although biomarkers have many attractions as screening tests, inadequate sensitivity and specificity, when combined with the low prevalence of cancer in asymptomatic subjects, limit their value for the early detection of malignancy.
Screening has been defined as the systematic application of a test to identify subjects at sufficient risk of a specific disorder to benefit from further investigation or direct preventive action, among persons who have not sought medical attention on account of symptoms of that disorder. To be of value, screening must detect disease earlier and result in an efficacious treatment and the earlier use of efficacious treatment must lead to better outcome compared to treatment available at the onset of symptoms. Screening differs from diagnosis in that the aim is to detect disease or a predisease state when subjects are asymptomatic.
What if the factory and military-influenced inspectors have applied pseudo-medical quality screening in an inappropriate way?
Like calls for inappropriate screening, what if pressure to conform has blinded doctors to the link between what they would recognise as inappropriate and unethical medical practice and the philosophy underlying ISO quality inspection?
At least with medical problems somebody does the research to find an answer.