Accredit Signatory with airSlate SignNow

Accredit signatory template

hello and welcome to January's webinar my name is Michael Kramer and I'm presenting this month's webinar about Perry Johnson laboratory accreditation coming at you live from my home base in Virginia I'm the calibration inspection program manager at Perry Johnson this month we're going to look at two different sections we're going to look at that from the 2017 standard section 7 7 which is insuring the validity of results and we're actually going to present present that first and then follow that one of our closely correlated policies pl-1 which is a PJs policy on proficiency testing as always this webinar is being recorded hence if you had a colleague that maybe want to listen listen to this it will be available on our website shortly after today's session also the past webinars we've done over the last several years are there and they are entirely feel free to review the topics if you want to go back and listen to any of them also some fairly new is that we also have available for downloading just the individual slide presentations from all at the conclusion of today's webinar I will answer questions that you may have on your screen there you should see a box where you can enter questions directly into the into the box when we're finished I'll go back and review some of the questions try to answer as many as I could please keep your questions related to today's topic so it stated we're going to start with the requirements in iso/iec 117 section 77 which is ensuring the validity of results and this correlates to the 2005 section five nine which was assuring the quality of testing calibration results so what what does this entail typically these are our internal quality control [Music] internal measurement assurance programs you may have common one I have depicted on the screen there is an analytical balance which if you're requesting that balance say with test weights keeping a log a predefined limit self acceptance before you proceed with any sort of testing or calibration that that balance is going to be used on that falls under the realm of discuss today so looking directly at the requirements in the 2017 standard 771 the laboratory shall have a procedure for miners the ability of results the resulting bad azz shall be recorded in such a way that trends are detectable and we're practical statistical techniques shall be applied to review the results this monitor shall be planned and reviewed and shall include where appropriate but not limited to an expanded list of what this catered tale here but just couple things that dispels out is first of all we have shall have a procedure so somewhere within your quality management system you should have documented a procedure stating how you are doing this and we need records so you should have a record showing what has been done in this area so let's look at some of the items here five nine had a lot of these comers you'll see and I've highlighted some of the additions here that can be used so first one this carried over is the use of reference reference material or quality control material such as we see there there are pH solutions perhaps from an ISO guide 20 excuse me 30 for provider my new one is the use of alternative instrumentation that has been calibrated to provide traceable results that's a new possibility functional checks of measuring equipment and testing equipment so this can be thought of anything in regards to perhaps verification that the equipment that you're using for your testing account bracing is responding to property produce the process inputs that use of check or working standards with control charts where that's new intermediate checks on measurement equipment is also know we look at the requirements in regards to equipment as a requirement within that selection as well you should have some sort of air media checks on your equipment replicas test or calibration using the same or different methods retesting of recalibration of retain items perhaps if you have an item that perhaps failed perhaps another technician test it see if those results come out to be the same correlation of results for different characteristics of an item perhaps your tester calibration has a is affected the saving environmental conditions such as say temperature or humidity so that could be correlated with in the results if that correlation is specifying the change which should be specifying a new one just a simple review of reported results results that your technicians have produced and just go back and just shortly again bear in mind even with it if you're utilizing this that you should create a record showing that this has been done in trot laboratory comparisons this is new and we're going to see here in a little bit magnify interlock comparison we're going to talk in pl-1 we're going to specify intra lab comparison this is basically a comparison within the four walls of your say your laboratory where you may have technician a test or calibrating item and then have the others fall suit Aki there is if in tries with individuals within your walls your equipment your personnel it's not incorporating values from the outside world okay testing a blind sample so this is new so what the heck is is this I recall using this in preview employment that I had where we had some technicians retest samples that were already tested perhaps by another technician not knowing who it was it could even have been a sample which they had tested in the past and just analyzed the results from what was reported before so again with all these procedures stating how this is being accomplished in your organization and records to support that these activities are being being performed so you know of course not going to expect to see all these I've go back and when we go back here so as states where appropriate but not limited to so there should be some of these areas where it some could be incorporated into your testing or calibration activities okay we have the significant changes within the standard so the laboratory shout monitoring performance by comparisons with results of other laboratories and I bowled it there we're available and appropriate to be be accomplished this monitoring shall be plan in reviewed and shall include but not limited to either or both of the following so we have a to two items here a is proficiency testing ie in PL one that is we refer to that as third-party proficiency testing providers we're gonna see the definition these terms are actually defined in the standard and then participation in inter lab comparisons other than proficiency testing that's again both of these are as it's different from the intro lab test we were looking at 771 because these are going to incorporate comparison - your values - values that have been obtained from another organization so some of the key changes here is this new requirement either or both to provide proficiency testing or inter-laboratory comparisons so we're going to look at P l1 which is our policy on proficiency testing heads if your organization is accredited with us and you are complying with PL 1 then your organization will already be meeting these requirements so that's going to be magnified when we get into P l1 start discussing third party proficiency testing providers and reliable person and then what is needed if I love the size to either do intra lab or repeatability studies is C testing so these are two definitions in the standards on this but at it in our laboratory comparisons organizations performance and evaluation some measurements or tests on the same or similar items by two or more laboratories and accordance with predetermined conditions so bare-bones minimum this is your organization and at least one other lab testing the same artifact or perhaps a similar sample and then comparing the results in a meaningful way proficiency testing which is the evaluation of participants performance against pre-established criterias by means of interlaboratory comparison so this is typically associated with third party proficiency testing providers companies that are actually in the business of providing proficiency testing where you submit you say excuse me submit samples or artifact for you to test or calibrate your results will be compared to numerous results of other laboratories that had tested the same artifact or sample so as always it's great that you're doing you're doing this to comply with the standard we have to analyze the data in some sort of meaningful way data for monitoring activity shall be analyzed used to controlling it advocate goal improve the laboratory activities if the results of the analysts of data for monitoring activities are found to be outside predefined criteria appropriate actions shall be taken to prevent incorrect results from being reported so most of this was incorporated in the 2005 what's been added is the concept of using the QC data to control and improve so as an Assessor if perhaps you're doing an inner lab comparison I see one organization's data I've come across this more than one occasion here's another organization data that PT is not complete you know at that point there that data has to be analyzed how do you analyze the data stay tuned we have a going to go into a little bit more detail and pl/1 and some tools that we have on our website so just arm a couple general observations here the 2017 standard as you can see it's placing more emphasis on interlab comparisons and proficiency testing so other than the fact that the standard 2017 standard and pl/1 requires it these activities are beneficial for the laboratory to check the reliability of their results by comparison within their peer group and determine their performance declines in accreditation bodies with the increasing availability of see testing scheme many technical fields the criteria for selecting of an appropriate eaves are becoming more important so some of the relevance of interlaboratory comparison how can can you utilize the results other than fulfilling a requirement and the standard where from the accrediting bodies they can be used to validate test procedures the certified reference materials to assess the competence of your own laboratory or more general to investigate degree of comparability among laboratories irrespective excuse me irrespective of the specific aim of the in in laboratory comparisons the results can be used by a participating laboratory to check the performance of the test procedure and or its staff to demonstrate his competence toward clients and your accreditation body and to gain useful information for the evaluation of the measurement uncertainty perhaps you can detect a bias there that you can't account for so for additional information and we're going to cross walk into pl/1 on our website what you have depicted there from the screen you have a table for proficiency testing where there's some information there there's some third-party providers there's some calculators there alright so as you can see the expanded requirements in 2017 standard as opposed to the 2005 standard so we're going to look at that PLA our pl/1 and this is something if you've been assessed to mate by myself I like to stress to the labs we have our policies yeah one through three we have a policy for simple usage these are not extra things that we decided to require laboratories to comply with we are accredited - we are accredited as you can see under the I lack a mutual recognition agreement the standard is 1 7 oh 11 they have policy documents so hence we are evaluated by I like their also ensuring that we are implementing their policies so one thing that they have a policy on is their ILAC policy p9 which is the policy for per proficiency testing activities so again this is Iraq or a signatory we come under the asia-pacific laboratory accreditation cooperation which is the reason I like it that we are here in the US so a couple things the mind if these are coming directly out of I lack policies so then you'll see how these are cross walked over to PJ's policies that requires minimum proficiency testing activities according to the laboratory or inspection bodies were relevant and let's go bears evidence of satisfactory performance prior to gaining accreditation where PT is available and appropriate so you'll say yeah with us you're not going to get accredited until you've actually completed a successful PT within the realms of po1 further an ongoing activity that is appropriate to the scope of accreditation and consistent with the PT participation plan it's not just the one kind thing it's an ongoing process maybe that's us accrediting bodies shall have a policy on the use of PT activities and the assessment of the accreditation process this policy shall include the following reference to the importance of proficiency testing as a tool to demonstrate laboratory and inspection body's competence where relevant and to assisting him and the quality of the laboratory or inspection bodies performance and any regulation regarding the minimal level of frequency of participation by proficiency testing by accrediting laboratories including the need for a proficiency test participation plan which has been formulated by the lavatory or inspection body keep saying we're relevant here for inspection bodies it's an inspection bodies quite often efficacy testing is is not relevant or is not required and is regularly reviewed in response to changes in staffing methodology instrumentation etc etc so accreditation body shall fully document their policies procedures in the relationship to the use of proficiency testing and particularly they must be able to evaluate through the accreditation by process that the participation in proficiency testing activities in the laboratory and where relevant inspection bodies accredited by them is effective and that corrective action are carried out when necessary it is recognized that there are areas of testing and calibration for which suitable proficiency testing does not exist or is not practical in cases the accrediting bodies and the laboratories or irrelevant the inspection bodies shall discuss and agree on a suitable alternative means on which performance can be assessed and monitored this would need to be considered as part of the plan proficiency testing and our related activities so these are requirements that are placed on us at PG ln3 I lack policy Pinay so heads coming from all these requirements I just went over we have established our policy PL 1 which is there we Johnson laboratory accreditation proficiency testing requirements and this document under the resource is available so the only if you're accredited with us you would have a you should have a copy of this one of your external documents if you're meeting a like the acquire a copy but is instead of all of our policies are available on our website so again prior to accreditation by pjl a an applicant organization must provide objective evidence of proficiency testing activity for at least one item including on this desire scope of the accreditation the item that the organization should choose is for proficiency testing must be one that is suitable to demonstrate the competence of the organization for the maintain for the main field of activities either calibration or testing the results of this proficiency testing must be meaningful and that the organization not only needs to perform the efficacy testing the resulting that and must be demonstrated must demonstrate the organization's competence it performing the specified test or calibration so again as stated in that policy p9 before your accredited yes you have to do a PT and you have to successfully do a proficiency tennis within the realm of the requirements specified in the in our case po1 so again this is not a one-time thing upon achieving accreditation by PGA organizations are required to perform proficiency testing annually result of this testing shall be monitored during the laboratory subsequent surveillance or recrimination assessment and a minimum organizations are required to have objective evidence of favorable proficiency testing results for each discipline in the scope of activities within the four-year cycle so those of you that aren't accredited with us you know very well that one thing one item record that we like to have even prior to coming in on say is a copy of your proficiency testing that was it completed within we'll talk about within the four-year plan it thou has been approved within the requirements of PL 1 so we talked about a four year cycle we're going to talk about a four year plan you're going to see the term discipline sub-disciplines so a discipline is a category of calibration or set of tests intended to qualify or evaluate common or related parameters of the unit device or subsequent submit submitted for the lavatory of test so those disciplines currently and I have testing and calibration up here these are the disciplines that we offer at the pjl a/c the nine stated up there on their calibration and you see the 10 there on their testing so we're talking about you have to cover each discipline over a four year period you'll these are what we're talking about these areas here so even if you have you do one thing you perhaps you're a calibrator and the only thing you do is pipe s it's going to be pretty straightforward that comes under the area mechanical your plan would be doing that every year some of our larger scopes and I know we have some quite extensive scopes that cover an array of these disciplines to be quite challenging to get everything completed over a four-year period so we're going to talk about the sub discipline so the term disciplines the sub disciplines come out in pl/1 at a minimum a sub-discipline is an element of an Associated calibration or test discipline in which the magnitude of a stated parameter has been defined as a measurement objective and will be determined by a specified method using appropriate skills and equipment something so plain maybe he composed of one or more such elements where the organ nation has determined a measurement objective the specified method the appropriate equipment or either identical or similar to such a degree that they can be considered as mutual representative in addition the organization shall have determined that successful performance of either with satisfactory objective evident with satisfactory objective evidence of the technical competence so we're going to see some examples here in a minute but basically these are items that oh if your procedure is the same basically if the standard and equipment used to performing a test or calibration is the same they can be incorporated into B sub disappoints so a couple examples here would be calibration folks these are pretty much as far as testing them the standard was typically the same the test method is the same just might have some differences in the resolution the actual display dis be projected so for example in calibration micrometer gone when the caterers and calipers could typically be grouped into one discipline so if you can count successfully show that you've calibrated a say proficiency test for a micrometer it's safe to say that that could be crosswalk over to the Iowa Catering calipers one example for testing mechanical testing threaded fasteners nope hardness machine component Vickers hardness leaf springs Rockwell hardness so further here's an example for the mechanical doesn't he's all fall under mechanical testing discipline the organization has determined that the measurement objective the specified method and the appropriate skills and equipment used to test hardness mine open Vickers method are identical or similar to such a degree that they could be considered as mutually represented in other words if you can successfully complete a proficiency testing Vickers hardness here that can be crossed walked over because of the similarities between the testing the other ones that are stated here that could be group thing as a sub-discipline one for each each item within the sub-discipline group alright so so if you require this was if you recall this was a requirement in the policy p1 establishing and a proficiency testing plan we have established a four-year cycle at proficient Perry Johnson and within these four years cycle each discipline would have to be covered with an e four-year cycle so an example with an organization is accredited for only four disciplines and to have no sub disciplines while the other two disciplines have multiple sub disciplines all four disciplines must be representative on the four-year plan at least the lor into four years on which the plan is I did say to accrue disciplines that have no sub disciplines to choose from and will present on the plan in the years chosen by the organization's but the other two disciplines will be represented by selections from their son discipline sub-discipline chosen are to be from the more challenging of those available during the next four years these disciplines represented by the select sub disciplines will be represented by a difference of discipline selected again from the more challenging of the remaining items so what's that saying if you go back to the calibration example where we grouped in micrometer x' calipers indicators perhaps you felt that micrometer was the most challenging that would be covered over over the four years hence at that dimensional discipline covered over the next four years it's just ad hoc to choose from something else on that way so perhaps not repeat the micrometer perhaps doing caliper or in Decatur though this is a requirement so organization seeking accreditation shall develop a four-year proficiency testing playing using the template PT plan form which I'll show you here in a minute it's called an LFA t1 form we'd like for you to use that but it's not required you can use an equivalent document prior to the initial assessment this plan will be reviewed by the assessment team during the on-site visit for compliance to this policy any deviations from the mandatory requirements outlined in this policy shall be submitted to headquarters for approval and closed we'll notify the assessment team and a client of any such approvals from the deviation of this policy so there's a copy of the LM 81 where you can document your four-year plan so perhaps your scope evolves things get taken you you increase your scope you maybe even remove decrease your scope in this case you're a proficiency testing plan would need to evolve around that credit organization is wishing to expand their scope shall apply the requirements the PL 1 so this bear in mind if you had an item you want to be accredited for a specific item you're going to have to support it with proficiency test thus modifying the four-year plan is necessary in order to recruit the capabilities being added as a result of the scope expansion so even the 2017 standards requires review of policies and procedures as a mandatory activity during the management review credit organization shall be able to provide objective evidence that their policies and procedures related to proficiency testing or Ravine for suitability or the management review is a good time to step back look at your see testing Plan C where you're in since a mandatory input Dorn during the management review see if you're on schedule one to do what's on your 4-year plan and if you uh perhaps if you've expanded your scope to assure that you have a plan in place to include the the scope expansion items to your efficacy testing plan there's something out in PL one that's an IMAX signature EOP JLA is required to participate in proficiency testing program sponsored by recognition bodies including but not limited to the a black which is the region of ILAC that we come under which is the Asian Pacific laboratory accreditation cooperation and even directly from I lack international laboratory accreditation cooperation so in other words they they may have a supply pja with artifacts for us to have some of our labs tests which will be compared to other labs from other accrediting bodies so that does happen PG a well select potential participants from its listing of accredited or advocates laboratory and select nominations nominees from those who qualify on the basis of CMC which is calibration and measurement capabilities for calibration or detection limits appropriate for the calibration or tests where available available there will be no cost to the organization except for the time to perform the test organizations will be selected first on a voluntary basis however PG la reserves the rights to require participation by any organizations and I do see these come down occasionally for us trying to coordinate some of these proficiency testing through this international schema participate proficient these testing that is described on this slide here all right so they're now looking at prove means of proficiency testing so we pretty much list the pecking order up here as far as means of proficiency testing so at the top of the list is a coordination through participation in proficiency testing by a sponsored third-party accredited provider so there are there is a standard and actually it's something that we've just added to began a scope for accredited proficiency testing providers which is one 704 three is the standard for that so ideally if you're going to go through a third-party provider you would go one that's recognised under that international standard next in line would be participation in proficiency testing program sponsored by a third-party provider which may not necessarily be any credit at one 704 three thirdly is interlaboratory comparison something you can coordinate yourself and then last but not least we have when the use of the approved method is considered by the organization as being impractical as a meaning of demonstrating proficiency testing activities listed in this preference loader may be used pending prior approval by pjl a and this includes intra lab testing which is like that we discussed earlier that's within the confines of your four walls you're not comparing your results that any other organization outside your your own and the very bottom of that the list is repeatability studies that's basically just showing you can report repeat the same measurement or test results so that's at the bottom of the list is showing you could repeat repeating yeah the correct result so one thing we'll talk about this a little bit further at an organization which is to proceed with one of the above-mentioned means they are they must state in writing why third party or interlab comparisons are not feasible and then how they plan to conduct the test and analyze the data this document shall be submitted to PGA headquarters for review and approval we'll discuss that a little bit more but if you recall under the requirements of the standard this goes hand in hand and what has been put into 772 of the standards for the external controls the states you have to either use proficiency testing or interlaboratory comparison where available and appropriate what we're doing here in PL one is if you feel that there is it is not say as an area where there are no third-party providers in a unique testing or calibration area and if whatever reason you cannot conduct an interlock then you basically have to put it in writing you have to state your case basically and why those two are not feasible and then how do you plan to conduct the test and analyze the data so third party providers like I said that's a at the top of the list is something that we strongly encourage accredited or applicants to participate in these these programs are sponsored by third party providers once those programs exist some of the advantage did stick purchases per kissing in this type of programs are yeah the assurance that the proficiency testing takes place at appropriate intervals completely object the objectivity on the part of the proficiency testing sponsors so you know if you ever be participated in some of these third-party programs they're interested in your values your results not interested so much on how you achieve them a lot of times I get that as far as why they can't why an organization cannot do a third party is their their their test master is preparatory rights patent or you know something to that aspect the PT provider does not see that all they see is your results and your aiming giving a number or a letter so you're not even identified on the report so there is no Senate's complete objectivity on the part of the third-party provider and the statistical analysis are completed by the provider and then you can also have the direct reporting of the results to PG la by the provider only half the organization availability is something that we require anyway so our website has a listing of some approved on providers should be a competent provider and that can be demonstrated in several ways one is one of them which is through one 704 three compliance there's other basis for determining competencies such as well recognized national or international programs or organizations mandated by the regulatory authority if the organization's have questions or concerns regarding potential third party proficiency testing providers contact their office and probably put you in touch with the technical person in over your area of testing or calibration ok that's third party we're going to talk about interlock comparisons so that is a bonus minimum it's your organization and one other organization testing the same artifact or similar sample using comparable methods under specified conditions so the resulting data from each organization shall be in agreement with the other participants organizations should be accredited or any applicant stations of accreditation whenever practical so it should be ideally from another organization who is accredited however in cases where the participation laboratories say or not occur that evidence the traceability must be proven as required in Akron sibility policy pal29 equip traci LF 123 that's a form that would need to be thrown out and then submitting objective evidence just like if you were using a non-accredited compiler for as a source for your traceable measurements so analyzing proficiency testing popular means is something quantity normal analysis so there we see the the formula for this you can read this is an example of one based on a 95% confidence interval for your calibrators out there which is pretty much I would say 99% of the time that's what we see 95% confidence interval what this is looking at and just bear in mind this is your lab and bare-bones minimum one lab so it's basically looking at oh your value and your degree of uncertainty the other labs value their degree of uncertainty and I'm basically looking to see if they overlap each other so this is a calculator that we do have available on our website a lot of organizations do assessments before they were doing it or lab takes advantage of this like I said it's not just here their results and here's our results we need to have the data analyzed in a meaningful way so this normal analysis can be used to analyze your inter lab proficiency test probably the second most popular method allowed if the reporting providers will use this it's something called a z-score looks entropy debility more so repeat measurements or other graphical techniques that can be paired with lavatories performance in relations to others in the study in terms of measure value and the variation of uncertainty this is not an all-inclusive list methods desire to see we can refer you to I sub 1 3 5 to 8 under there we have basically the formula for the z-score there so what we have here we just talked about proficiency testing third party providers we just talked about in our lab and now we're going to talk a little bit about and this comes right out of po1 if you determine that those others are impractical we have entry lab and repeatability study and again you know the externa bout just bear in mind if you go this route you have to get approval and if there are in one thing you know I like to stress with our Assessors with proficiency testing is if there is a known third party provider you know chances are we're going to require you to use that provider or do an inner lab tests so if there is a known third party provider let's say for example my kilometres there's no way we're going to proven and ensure our lab tests for micrometer is because there's plenty of proficiency testing providers to provide that so basically you shouldn't even be requesting that for something in that such as that and you would be required to use either third you know the third party or if you wanted it conducted in her lab test you can also do that so bear in mind this needs additional approval the intro lab tests again this is conducted within the confines of your four walls or your organization where several analysts or technicians within an organization performing kissing or calibration on the same or similar artifact using the same methods under specific control conditions okay so even if you do that the data resulting from this activity shall be analyzed for statistical validity so again even though the V score or the normal analysis can be used to do this even for an intro lab if you have say Jon ace technician most experienced technician on your staff they can provide a reference value if this has been approved then have the other technicians values be compared to the reference technician for example and then we talk about repeatability study so this is at the bottom of the pecking order so it consists of a number of tests or measurements just generally eight performed on the same or similar artifact using the same method under specified control conditions the remote barriers also needs to be analyzed for cystic analysis validity by appropriate means so very seldom would this be approved it might be this case is perhaps was just one technician in a very area which is not that there is no third-party provider the knowledge base is very limited on that may may approve the repeatability study in cases like that again the biggest drawback with repeatability study shows you can repeat and think about it showing you were a pee but you want to make sure you're repeating the same value excuse me that's the same value the right value so again the intro lab and repeated repeatability study they need prior PGA approval if you're a DoD I'll a pee-pee navlab NL L AP program which is comes under PG n over m realm we do address proficiency testing at PL one in relations to those programs excuse me that's specified here on that screen and when they excuse me this current slide what we have in PL one it's very specific to those programs all right so a lot of ground there so see if I have any questions so bear with me a moment sometimes they take a while to start coming up if you have any questions type them in try to get as many as I can [Music] again these are this is live so I'm reading this directly as they're coming in and just bear them on I'm seeing some of these are very technical in the testing area which I may not be able to answer I'm the calibration program manage some of these very specific questions in regard to some of the testing activities what I don't want to steer anybody wrong it's next I'm not real sure it's a PTP analysis how should that be approached more like a routine sample with appropriate analysis or more like a research project again if that sample if it's a similar sample if you have another lab that you have data from in that sample that's what you're going to be comparing comparing that with hey we use a vacuum concentrate or sporadic ly for some tests well this instrument be calibrated every year I started out of the realm of what we went over today that would be come under equipment will be calibrated every year so in the section on equipment have established calibration programs so there is no specific requirement as far as calibrating it every year however one thing sort of will go hand in hand here with calibration intervals if you have a good system of intermediate checks on an equipment and you're able to indicate any sort of drift in the equipment can be used to extend the calibration interval let's say for example a pH meter for example you don't have it calibrated for five years there's no intermediate checks the pH meters comes back is being out of Tolerance you're a lot of legwork to do there you have to investigate five years worth of reverse traceability if you have a good system of intermediate checks and you record the data perhaps you can use that to either show how stable the instrument is over a period of time or detect any any change in the performance of the equipment that you're having calibrated so yes it's also a require these intermediate checks but they can also be used as a valuable tool for detecting drift in your equipment particularly and that is one of the protocol for extending calibration intervals you have a good system of intermediate checks and you feel you could after some period of time you determine the instrument is stable and then you have a good system of intermediate checks in place where if it does drift there's something you're going to pick up and not have to go all the way back to when the instrument was originally calibrated because if there was nothing done between calibrations it could have gone out the day after it came back or the day before you sent it off next one here we are doing PT for different parameters reference materials by frequency is sent so that each test is repeated for PT participation after three years is that okay well according to pl one if these fall under the same discipline and you're capturing it once over four year period then that would be fine you'll be well within the realms of what's required to pl one does the clea proficiency testing satisfy the requirements of ISO 175 2017 I don't want to really answer that one because I'm not I'm not sure I'm not a testing person I have heard of that it sounds like an area that it can be used so in that case I would call the office and that's for the testing program manager to be able to handle that to answer that directly but I believe so but I don't want to say a hundred percent with hundred percent confidence that I'm answering that one correctly somebody says they tried to download the calculator and got an error message well I let us know about it we should be get any error method master method with the calculator I know a lot of organizations use it and this is the first I've heard of somebody being unable to download the calculator make sure your operating system is up to speed maybe try another computer if you're still having difficulties I would call our our office and I speak to them directly quite often that would be downloaded at a later date when that sent in I'll get your information and then it would be downloaded to you we're pts is not available specifically in other labs are also not accredited can we conduct an interlock comparison with diet to a good question um ideally you would want to do it with an accredited lab I would say that that would be better than a excuse me a pure intra lab test but according the pl excuse me PL one as long as the other lab can be can show evidence that their measurements are traceable well that's the only thing and this is more in the realm of calibration so with that what they would have that show objective evidence is that that they well for one thing if they're participating in proficiency testing with your organization that would be one of the requirements that they would already be meeting second requirement would be that they have a stated measurement uncertainty so by definition they have to be able to calculate the uncertainty of their measurements and then lastly you need to know as far as the equipment that they're using basically the status of that equipment whoo-hooo calibrating are they accredited hopefully they are so again pl-1 refers to non-accredited sources and the requirements are specified in there as far as objective evidence of traceability being that is there a follow a process that should be followed with pjl a in the instance of a PT failure absolutely yeah y'all do a proficiency test and if you fail the proficiency tests and if I'm assessing you I don't want it to be dead in the water there I want you're gonna have to have some sort of corrective action you're going to be able to perhaps repeat the proficiency test once the corrective action has been taken and passed the corrective action so that's one thing yes when we're there we'll review the pts where I'm going to review to make sure well that you followed the four-year plan they've been analyzed properly and of course if you pass the proficiency testing maybe have a possible Christian C testing test we'll be looking for the corrective action to be followed and then perhaps we'll repeated the proficiency test well a state lavatory be approved is accredited for international comparisons interlab Commerce's yes as long as they have depending on what area and we do address state metrology labs and pl2 and you have different levels of recognition there so as long as they have a certificate of traceability some of them are accredited that is it our accredited or accredited through navlab because they are actually part of the Department of Commerce but let's say for example if you're doing the biggest workload by far in the state is the area of mass weights so if you're doing say 50 pound block class F weights and your state metrology lab is recognized or not accredited but they have a certificate of traceability on file and we really address this in pl2 that there are national on three mass calibration lab which will allow them to do in this example say 50 pound blocks test wastes and yes they could be used as an inter lab comparison another thing is a lot of those a lot of your folks are doing scales and balances we do allow I know sometimes this can be tough particularly say with truck scales in the larger capacity type scales but if your state weights and measures they say they go into an organization and they test the scale and you have access about Donna they say they rejected a scale and you have to go in and bring it back within where it needs to be and you have a copy of the state report where they had left the scale excuse me the values of the scale you would use your edge if you can take your ass round data and compare it to the state lab excuse me the state weights and measures inspectors report and then analyze that in a meaningful way that's another area you can use the state state program statement Rolla G state weights and measures program for proficiency testing so we go to lab or in the area of I would say I've seen a lot with scale organizations industrial pipe scales a few questions here yeah this is I think if there's a whole one anywhere in pl-1 some of our lives are pretty extensive and po1 is bare-bones moon where you can always do more than what is that what's in there um is there a specific minimal amount of sub-disciplines we need to complete or maximize asking from a lab with a relatively large scope so yeah if you have a large scope and you have a lot of sub-disciplines in there and according to pl-1 you just have to cover each discipline went one time so once like I said this is bare-bones minimum you can always do more than ever less so if you think about it some of these large goats with a lot of sub-disciplines it might be maybe several cyclists with the four-year plan before you would get to some of the items just bear in mind that would you specify it should be one of the areas initially that you you is more challenging and perhaps something that you do on a routine basis will you be able to provide an example of a submission stating why third party and our lab testing is not feasible thank you it's pretty well first of all if there is a third-party provider out there they don't even bother putting in request the Assessor should should recognize that if there is no third-party provider of course that that would be an area that could definitely be stated as far as why third party is not feasible and then for whatever reason you're unable to conduct an inner lab test may not be anybody accredited to perform the test or your Willington I review them all for calibrations I've seen that often or or you're unwell and you've reached out and have been unwilling to gain cooperation from your say your colleagues within the industry trying to coordinating in lab tests so uh you know most popular there is no third-party provider yes you know you would state that that's definitely a reason for not doing third-party and for whatever reason you can't conduct an inter lab test hey there are nobody hey we've tried we reached out and I'm in signing off we do encourage you to continue to seek interlab alternatives so answer your question is you know they're you know ideally you know put that request there are no third party providers you looked unable to find any and for whatever reason you're unable to conduct an inner last logistically cooperation wise with the other organizations that props you reached out to these proficiency testing required every year yes it is even if you just do one thing one item I gave the example I you're you're a pipette calibrator and that's all you do you got to do that pipette proficiency test every single year ideally perhaps at different volumes how can a lab treat with a failed PT for you know one thing I would think even I would take that very seriously even regardless of what when I say or what the standard says because this proficiency testing if you're feeling a PT it could be directly impacting the results that you're supplying your customers so in order to handle I failed PT you would a couple things you would need to do is first there's a couple processes you would need to look at you would need to look at the non-conforming calibration work so you failed a PT then it impact any of your customers work and then if need be take corrective action for whatever perhaps oh it could be something as simple as having your standard recalibrated it was out of color it's it's riff that you hadn't recalibrate it you send it out the s-band was out but yeah it's right within the standard if you fail PT like anything else and you would you're non-conforming calibration work processed it what to disimpact and then you would need to just run it through your corrective action process you have to determine you know why do you think you failed this proficiency test what went wrong here and it sort of come across as sometimes we had a PT done last June 2019 mass you're still waiting for the final report is this normal length of time or is this an outlier for my experience I would say that was an ant liar I know most are pretty good at least providing you a preliminary report you know with mass you know perhaps just got to make the rounds you know to get to all the other organizations it might be something that's just started but I would say that's it shouldn't be doing that's quite a while ago but I would ask your organization and I have seen where they would provide a preliminary report that to you you know pending the release of the final report this next question is kind of lengthy if the participation in PT 404 parameters method and failed you know one results in scores greater than three so your predefined limit of acceptance is greater than three then you fail the PT then should we have to participate in that specific method again or by participating in other methods like I just answered before you found a PT that's serious regardless of what the standards say because it could be impacting your result so turn put the keys in turn the ignition key or corrective action process and take it from there probably the best answer I can give in those cases for a failed PT are there third party providers for microlabs I'm sure there are I'm like I said I'm not a testing organization I'm very familiar with those that are for calibration I encourage you to and actually encourage you to first of all well look on our website we have proficiency testing providers or I hate to say google it but that's the way I find a lot of information whatever the test you happen to be performing but all these providers have websites that you should be able to capture it during the search we participate in the correlation that we are not accredited by a recognized buyer we participate any correlation that are not accredited by a recognized buyer is that okay our local Assessors are not accepting this how can we convince them well the thing there is again we have requirements the Assessors doing this job if they don't meet the traceability requirements so if I'm not sure what type of testing you're involved in if you've reached an impasse with the Assessor and you feel non-conformance 'iz has been been written and you feel you're justified in using and I wanted to encourage this because if the Assessor did not agree to it is probably because they didn't meet the requirements and pl-1 for whatever reason was his traceability so Chris ability is needed and this person had to have to and show the objective evidence which they could do if they are in fact providing critical measurements if I'm off base here if it's something totally related differently then you you feel strongly enough that the Assessor is wrong in this case then the only thing I could say is you could dispute the finding in that case we're democratic @pg la would put a couple sets of eyes on it and have other Assessors take a look at it see if they come to the same results should last be sending PT results to pj LH time PT tests are completed yes and ideally if you're accredited with your schedule or reach out way in advance of the the assessment and provide you something called the assessment readiness list where things you need to submit for the Assessor to have prior to coming on-site that means they'd be the proficiency testing that was done since the last PGI assessment therefore the answer is so you're gonna have to submit the proficiency test each year the PJ la if for whatever reason you know I've come across cases like some of these third-party providers you may not have the results yet in those cases you know it could be something that's out of your control there is one here about HPLC I'm not ignoring the question I have no idea what that is I'm not going to answer it as saying that the Assessor said that the Assessor recommended purchase participate in all of HPLC it's a recommendation that's not a requirement so you can take that for what it's worth you have to comply with the requirements and in this case that would be those requirements with us in PL 1 and if it's an inter lab test its bare bones mineral yourself and one other organization is there any online resources to search it for proficiency testing providers available I gave you one on our website and we try to keep it up to date that we under the research task for fishin C test would be less quite a few providers out there and I believe the other accrediting bodies may have something similar to that on their website and like I said I did I do review some of these requests for inner last evening intra lab testing and it's something quite frankly if I'm not familiar with it I have googled and I was able to find some information that way whatever the test is sometimes I wouldn't get testing things come my way and I Google proficiency testing for a particular se type of sample we need to accredit our recently developed test the PT is not found before November 2020 how can we proceed in not sure exactly what the situation there is we need to accredit our easily to them if you're using it recently developed test so you're sort of I guess you're going to use proficiency test as it means of validating the test perhaps and you're eating a third-party provider out there to the holiday did you know if it's not going to be available until November and that's the only source you know then you're pretty much tied there unless you come up with another means of validating which in the note section of the standard gives you some other means of validating in which proficiency testing is one of those ways I don't know you know what area this is if it's something that you can perhaps conduct an inter lab test on an interim and if you perhaps if it's a test or and if it's a test or a calibration if you have an artifact that needs to be tested or calibrated or a sample that needs to be tested you can basically you can test it in your lab you can act like a customer of the other organization and submit the artifact to another accrediting organization and you can get their results you know like I said this is then I said second down from the pecking order of third-party providers so on the interim if you would could do that you can feel confident based on that comparison say it's an industry leader in your specific field and like I said you can submit a sample or an artifact for the other organization to test or calibrate after you had tested or calibrated in your lab and then get there of course what I tell folks make sure if it's a calibration make sure you're getting there something that's under their scope of accreditation there before after that and measurement uncertainty where you can analyze the results that we need to provide any kind of documentation if we cannot have interline Laboratories PT because we are the only one doing the testing well I'm assuming there is no third party with that question if you're the only one doing the testing and it's a very unique field and it sounds like that might be a realm for possible intra live approval so like we said in the presentation you'd have to state your case by third and ideally you should have that done prior I don't know where you're on the accreditation realm but it is required if you're going to include that in your four year plan that you get PJ's approval beforehand a state your case why third party and inter are not feasible and then also how you plan to conduct the test in a meaningful way can cost a piece of TP be a sufficient reason for not performing PTP you know that's a I would say no one thing you know where if the best way to put it is everybody's on a level playing field here so that argument has not been accepted by another lab it cost you know it cost too much to do third party proficiency test has not been allowed before and I know it has not regardless the last thing we want to do is approve somebody based on that argument where we have not approved someone else cause so I would say not and that's what something really astronomical and I say you need tests and you can really show a hardship but generally cost is not a valid reason for third party PT I can I can sympathize with it you know something can be costly I would encourage you to try interlab if it's going to create a hardship but just specifying cost and I would just say just by the fact that and we haven't allowed it to someone else we can't we got to be uniform in this as far as I having that as a reason for not doing a third party test I'm so I'm getting this is taking a while but I'm still getting questions as I'm going down the list here we are following it PT rounds but they're newly launched around used all PT data other I think that's matrix to calculate standard deviation this cause a rupture in the results in z-scores now like due to this so I'm not really seeing a question there if it is a something to do with a failed PT and you did your corrective action and you determine that was the cost the cause and I might be completely off-base here I'm just speculating I really don't see a question there that you would need to show that don't worry your corrective action for the fail PT if that perhaps was called the calls and perhaps redo the proficiency test I am I'm still going along Here I am registered with Energy Institute UK for pts it is recognized by is it recognized by P Jala I would say specifically no but it is an industry leader and say a regulator in the UK and I'm not going to say we would not recognize it I'm just not familiar with it it sounds like that type of organization if they're going to provide you some sort of report on testing that you provide it it sounds like that might be a source that we would up would allow how long should I participate in pts before getting a credit it not sure exactly you're talking about proficiency testing there basically we're gonna credit you have to perform one proficiency test and you have to complete it successfully within the realm of pl1 so you know if I'm reading that question correctly that would be one successful proficiency test and then of course you should have developed a four-year proficiency testing plan moving forward um those using multiple analysis technique to analyze a PTP sample makes sense if routinely one method is used and should it be done with one technique that PTT proficiency test I always follow the protocol that it should be you should actually treat it like if you're something that a customer submitted so that's what you want to see the end result you know next week we're going to be talking about reporting the results you should treat it just like you are how you're testing your customers because ultimately that's what you're evaluating you know that your your accredited calibrations that you're providing your customer so there's a technique that you're not versed in or you don't use and it's not under your accreditation I would not unless you know unless you're curious and perhaps want to stray into a different area and then do it both ways you could of course you can also do the PT you know it's your regular oil regularly method and then you can do it for your own informational purposes via the other methods and see if the two methods correlate with each other Gale feed I care I don't think people do that they over analyze these samples okay energy is the to use used to be known as Institute uh petroleum IP just by the way yes I was like how that sounds like very like I said there if you're submitting samples of them and they're checking your samples for you and they're out there they're in it they're a regulator and they're going to provide you results back and maybe an area that we can active maybe it sounds like somebody that we can add to our website we'll take a look and evaluate them alrighty oh there's more questions do we need to provide any kind of documentation if we cannot have inter laboratory PT because we are the only ones oops sorry I'm already read that one my screen keeps jumping on me I apologize I looks like that's the same I gotta you know thank you I appreciate that the kind works there so quite a quite a long list there hopefully I didn't steer anybody in the wrong direction there and some of these these these testing that I'm not familiar with before I let you go again thank you for logging in I hope you found this informative if you're transitioning to the 2017 standard that's coming here and fYI November 29th you know the 2005 is going to be considered obsolete I certainly hope this presentation helps you save the date February 28th we're gonna look at your final result you know what you're providing your customers which there is requirements just like 5/10 of the 2578 is reporting the results so I look forward to having everybody log in next excuse me next month so if February 28th and we'll go together so wherever your having to be logged in and enjoy the rest of your day or evening and I look forward to presenting in February thank you