JACO Officially listed i-STATs as a Blood Analyzer

We have been looking at this change from all angles and were told by TJC that we also need to re-evaluate our IQCP and perform monthly QC on every device. Now that they are considered chemistry analyzers, we have to treat them as such in every way. We have been considering using our monthly data to complete our 6 month correlations. 

We only have one i-Stat in my facility, and only perform the ABG's on that analyzer, so we have never performed correlations.  We did, at one point, many moons ago, perform the 6 mth cal verify.  During one of our JC inspections, an inspector stated the cal verify was not necessary.  Does this change reimplement the need for the cal verify at 6 mths?

many thanks

I'm also trying to figure out how others are interpreting this requirement. We currently perform cal/ver on all iSTAT every 6mo, have an established IQCP, perform weekly blood gas QC, and complete method comparison studies against our GEM analyzers every 6mo on a subset of iSTAT. We have about 28 iSTATs across our health system so performing method comparisons on every analyzer every 6mo would be a pretty significant undertaking. My interpretation is that all iSTAT need to be included in the correlation process but it's not clear whether JC expects direct method comparison on every analyzer or if there is another acceptable way to demonstrate agreement across all devices. We're considering using our cal/ver data to show agreement between the iSTAT while continuing method comparison studies on a subset of analyzers against the central lab method

Our lab is CAP accredited while our hospital is JC accredited. Also curious whether anyone has heard if CAP plans to issue guidance on this topic.

We just had our JC inspection last month. The inspector told us that using QC data or Cal Ver data are not acceptable as correlation data. Basically, they are separate events. Instead, he suggested (but cannot tell us what to do) that we test 5 (at minimum) different pooled samples and average the results. Those averages are then compared to each other. I'm still working out if I want to designate a primary (the inspector didn't like the idea but my pathologist does) or use an average of all results to compare (possible with a trimmed average to remove outliers). IDK, I have all the data, just unsure how to best analyze it. 

We only need to correlate directly measured analytes (we were already doing this), and only to similar sample types (we no longer need to correlate plasma/serum methods to whole blood).

What?! Cannot use QC or Cal Ver data to crunch separately as correlation? I would highly recommend direct contact with JC again and request further investigation on this, find direct evidence in a regulation that states you cannot use QC or Cal Ver. I am not JC but the CAP does allow this. 

My facility also does the Cal Ver and QC as well as patient sample comparison on the lab analyzers. We also get the AQSQ Quality Cross Check survey from CAP for our iSTATs twice per year which is done on all in use iSTATs.  I'm wondering if this will suffice for JC regulations.