I would not doubt that this may happen, but the trick then is to pick parts of the test or range, maybe looking at some inputs rather than at the final combined output. One sometimes hears of laboratories who undertake some unique test or calibration for which there is no comparable other laboratory. Hence we have Clause 7.7.2 which clearly requires some external involvement. Furthermore, any deficiency in the documented procedure for doing a test or calibration, followed by everyone would not be seen and the same might apply to bad training practices. If there was deficient traceability of measurement in a single external source, this might not be seen. There are distinct weaknesses arising from purely internal activity. Most of these possibilities would usually be considered “internal” to the laboratory or to a group of laboratories having common features. Some of the suggestions overlap with each other in their application and usefulness.
The list includes items particular to various types of laboratory activity and the laboratory should choose items that are relevant to them and which would bring the most useful information in their circumstances. It is not expected that all laboratories undertake all these activities.
intermediate checks on measuring equipment.use of check or working standards with control charts, where applicable.functional check(s) of measuring and testing equipment.use of alternative instrumentation that has been calibrated to provide traceable results.use of reference materials or quality control materials.This activity shall be undertaken, where appropriate, but not be limited to the items in Clause 7.7.1: All laboratories should expect to find something appropriate and attractive to them in the list. This avoids confusing smaller and larger uncertainties with high and low quality of work.Ī further enhancement in this version of the Standard is to include an extensive list of possible activities that might be undertaken to ensure the validity of results. This better reflects that measured values and test results all come with an uncertainty of measurement and if correct, the result is valid. In the latest version of the standard, the use of the term “quality” has been replaced in several places by “validity”.
ISO 17025 2017 LAB SET UP REQUIREMENTS HOW TO
Then one needs to consider how to achieve the demonstration of validity that c) above requires.
If you consider that compliance arises from Previous versions of ISO/IEC 17025 used different terminology but the concept that has existed for many years remains. Trevor Thompson of offers advice about the use of Interlaboratory Comparison and Proficiency Testing activities as required by ISO/IEC 17025:2017
0 kommentar(er)
