In this particular case you're saying you need to test the organs once at the outsource place and then again at the hospital? Why not just get rid of outsourcing then?
No, that is not what the parent said. "Check an verfiy" can come in diffrent forms and tastes eg. having some samples (not all) checked by another lab, asking for standards and inspection performed by 3rd parties, asking and checking for documentation...the hell how do you think anybody could work with suppliers?
> eg. having some samples (not all) checked by another lab,
I don't think that is useful at all in case of rare diseases. You would just get two reports saying that the random sample is free of HIV.
Much better would be to send some known control samples. Making sure that some of the samples is known HIV+, and then check if the supplier can tell which ones are those.
Yes, why not? You don't re-test every single one, though: you spot-check a statistically significant percentage of them. Or maybe you do check all of them, but only for a one month period every year (a month that changes every year, and isn't known to the testing lab, so they can't game the system).
Another option is to send "control samples" to the testing lab, something you know already is infected with something they should be testing for. Do this enough times, and you'll know if they're accurately reporting the bad samples.
This type of thing is the only way for anyone in any kind of organization to verify that their outsourcing is effective and they're getting the result they want.
Outsourced companies deal similar issues internally while also forcing you to trust their management. Internally this kind of corruption is more difficult because you have more control, and fewer people are going to cooperate. Similar to how companies can regularly use untrustworthy low level employees handle cash.
You can still get rogue employees in ether case, but an outsourcing company is like a ready made conspiracy where any corners cut automatically turns into money.
Bouncingsoul1|1 year ago
krisoft|1 year ago
I don't think that is useful at all in case of rare diseases. You would just get two reports saying that the random sample is free of HIV.
Much better would be to send some known control samples. Making sure that some of the samples is known HIV+, and then check if the supplier can tell which ones are those.
kelnos|1 year ago
Another option is to send "control samples" to the testing lab, something you know already is infected with something they should be testing for. Do this enough times, and you'll know if they're accurately reporting the bad samples.
This type of thing is the only way for anyone in any kind of organization to verify that their outsourcing is effective and they're getting the result they want.
JumpCrisscross|1 year ago
The problem is corruption. I don't see why you think that wouldn't plague internal operations.
Retric|1 year ago
You can still get rogue employees in ether case, but an outsourcing company is like a ready made conspiracy where any corners cut automatically turns into money.