Search

Introduction: This paper is a report of an ICSH review of policies and practices for internal quality control (IQC) policy for haematology cell counters among regulatory bodies, cell counter manufacturers and diagnostic laboratories. It includes a discussion of the study findings and links to separate ICSH guidance for such policies and practices. The application of internal quality control (IQC) methods is an essential pre‐requisite for all clinical laboratory testing including the blood count (Full Blood Count, FBC, or Complete Blood Count, CBC). Methods: The ICSH has gathered information regarding the current state of practice through review of published guidance from regulatory bodies, a questionnaire to six major cell counter manufacturers (Abbott Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Horiba Medical Diagnostic Instruments & Systems, Mindray Medical International, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics and Sysmex Corporation) and a survey issued to 191 diagnostic laboratories in four countries (China, Republic of Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom) on their IQC practice and approach to use of commercial IQC materials. Results: This has revealed diversity both in guidance and in practice around the world. There is diversity in guidance from regulatory organizations in regard to IQC methods each recommends, clinical levels to use and frequency to run commercial controls, and finally recommended sources of commercial controls. The diversity in practice among clinical laboratories spans the areas of IQC methods used, derivation of target values and action limits used with control materials, and frequency of running commercial controls materials. Conclusions: These findings and their implications for IQC Practice are discussed in this paper. They are used to inform a separate guidance document, which proposes a harmonized approach to address the issues faced by diagnostic laboratories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a description of the ICSH guidance for internal quality control (IQC) policy for blood cell counters. It follows from and links to a separate ICSH review for such policies and practices. The ICSH has gathered information regarding the current state of practice through review of published guidance from regulatory bodies, a questionnaire to six major cell counter manufacturers and a survey issued to 191 diagnostic laboratories in four countries (China, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom) on their IQC practice and approach to the use of commercial IQC materials. This has revealed diversity both in guidance and in practice around the world. There is diversity in guidance from regulatory organizations in regard to IQC methods each recommends, clinical levels to use and frequency to run commercial controls, and finally recommended sources of commercial control materials. The diversity in practice among clinical laboratories spans the areas of IQC methods used, derivation of target values, and action limits used with commercial control materials, and frequency of running commercial controls materials. These findings and their implications for IQC Practice are addressed in this guidance document, which proposes a harmonized approach to address the issues faced by diagnostic laboratories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aims of this project were to establish the outcomes for dental implant research that are important to people with lived experience (PWLE) and to achieve consensus with those developed by dental professionals (DPs) for a core outcome set (COS). This paper reports the process, outcomes and experiences of involving PWLE in developing a COS for dental implant research: the Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Sets and Measures project. Materials and Methods: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low‐middle‐income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high‐income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three‐stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated. Results: Thirty‐one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty‐four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel. Conclusions: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health‐related research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aims of this project were to establish the outcomes for dental implant research that are important to people with lived experience (PWLE) and to achieve consensus with those developed by dental professionals (DPs) for a core outcome set (COS). This paper reports the process, outcomes and experiences of involving PWLE in developing a COS for dental implant research: the Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Sets and Measures project. Materials and Methods: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low‐middle‐income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high‐income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three‐stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated. Results: Thirty‐one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty‐four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel. Conclusions: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health‐related research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transnational families have long used migration as a strategy for upward social mobility. However, migration projects are increasingly complex and often do not involve a single move from one country to another. Drawing on qualitative interviews, this paper explores how Latin American families negotiate different stages of their migration from Latin America to Spain to the UK. The paper demonstrates how families negotiate within the opportunity structures afforded to them to achieve physical and social mobility. These opportunities are structured by different legal regimes and the way that immigration, citizenship and labour market policies are implemented. The initial migration from Latin America to Spain had enabled Latin American families to gain economic stability and EU citizenship, but at the cost of a period of family separation. However, faced with the financial crisis, some families opted for onward migration to the UK, a process that resulted in families becoming "re‐transnationalised." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]