ÉTICA E MORAL COMO MODOS DE PRODUÇÃO DE SUBJETIVIDADE

Deleuze e Guattari entendem as idéias de Ética e Moral como movimentos produtores de realidade psicossocial ou sentidos de produção da vida psicossocial. Buscamos entender como os modos de funcionamento psicossociais produzem sentidos e podem ser captados nas práticas psicossociais éticas e morais. Nossa intenção é demonstrar, a partir da literatura kafkiana, os modos de subjetivação ética e moral

Ética e moral como modos de produção de subjetividade

Deleuze e Guattari entendem as idéias de Ética e Moral como movimentos produtores de realidade psicossocial ou sentidos de produção da vida psicossocial. Buscamos entender como os modos de funcionamento psicossociais produzem sentidos e podem ser captados nas práticas psicossociais éticas e morais. Nossa intenção é demonstrar, a partir da literatura kafkiana, os modos de subjetivação ética e moral

Ethic and moral as ways of production of subjectivity

Deleuze e Guattari entendem as idéias de Ética e Moral como movimentos produtores de realidade psicossocial ou sentidos de produção da vida psicossocial. Buscamos entender como os modos de funcionamento psicossociais produzem sentidos e podem ser captados nas práticas psicossociais éticas e morais. Nossa intenção é demonstrar, a partir da literatura kafkiana, os modos de subjetivação ética e moral.Deleuze e Guattari understands the ideas of Ethics and Moral as movements that produce psychosocial reality or ways of production of the psychosocial life. We try to understand how the ways of psychosocial functioning produce senses and can be caught in the ethical and moral psychosocial practices. We aim to demonstrate, from kafkian literature, the ways of ethical and moral subjectivation

Automated measurement of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate: Method validation and comparison

Development of automated analyzers for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) has imposed the need for extensive validation prior to their implementation in routine practice, to ensure comparability with the reference Westergren method. The aim of our study was to perform the analytical validation of two automated ESR analyzers, the Ves-Matic Cube 200 and the TEST1. Validation was performed according to the recent International Council for Standardization in Hematology recommendations and included determination of intrarun and inter-run precision, assessment of sample carryover, hemolysis interference, sensitivity to fibrinogen, method comparison with the gold standard Westergren method and stability test. The highest intrarun imprecision was obtained for the low ESR range (33.5% for Ves-Matic Cube; 37.3% for TEST1) while inter-run coefficients of variation on three levels were much better for the TEST1 (0%, 2% and 1.2%) compared to the Ves-Matic Cube 200 on two levels (24.9% and 5.8%). Both Ves-Matic Cube 200 and TEST1 showed no statistically significant difference when compared with Westergren. Bland-Altman analysis yielded overall insignificant mean biases for all comparisons, but a wider dispersion of results and 95% limits of agreement for comparisons including the Ves-Matic Cube 200. Carryover was considered insignificant, while hemolysis had a negative effect on all assessed ESR methods. The highest sensitivity to fibrinogen was observed for the Ves-Matic Cube 200, followed by Westergren and the least sensitive was the TEST1. The obtained results proved the analytical validity of the TEST1 and the Ves-Matic Cube 200, and high comparability with the gold standard Westergren method, showing obvious improvements in standardization of ESR methods

Automated measurement of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate: Method validation and comparison

Development of automated analyzers for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) has imposed the need for extensive validation prior to their implementation in routine practice, to ensure comparability with the reference Westergren method. The aim of our study was to perform the analytical validation of two automated ESR analyzers, the Ves-Matic Cube 200 and the TEST1. Validation was performed according to the recent International Council for Standardization in Hematology recommendations and included determination of intrarun and inter-run precision, assessment of sample carryover, hemolysis interference, sensitivity to fibrinogen, method comparison with the gold standard Westergren method and stability test. The highest intrarun imprecision was obtained for the low ESR range (33.5% for Ves-Matic Cube; 37.3% for TEST1) while inter-run coefficients of variation on three levels were much better for the TEST1 (0%, 2% and 1.2%) compared to the Ves-Matic Cube 200 on two levels (24.9% and 5.8%). Both Ves-Matic Cube 200 and TEST1 showed no statistically significant difference when compared with Westergren. Bland-Altman analysis yielded overall insignificant mean biases for all comparisons, but a wider dispersion of results and 95% limits of agreement for comparisons including the Ves-Matic Cube 200. Carryover was considered insignificant, while hemolysis had a negative effect on all assessed ESR methods. The highest sensitivity to fibrinogen was observed for the Ves-Matic Cube 200, followed by Westergren and the least sensitive was the TEST1. The obtained results proved the analytical validity of the TEST1 and the Ves-Matic Cube 200, and high comparability with the gold standard Westergren method, showing obvious improvements in standardization of ESR methods

Assessment and monitoring of agreement among professionals for morphological evaluation in compliance with International accreditation standard requirements

Objectives: Standardized criteria guaranteeing harmonized interpretation among morphologists in the provision of morphology results represent an important tool to be adopted for risk management and patient safety. Aim of this work is to assess agreement among morphologists in the microscopic evaluation of the peripheral blood smear. Methods: 17 morphologists participating in the external quality assessment (EQA) program individually evaluated the blood smear and recorded the results using a personal username and password. Agreement among operators was evaluated. Results: The overall agreement rate in microscopic differential was 95% in 2016 and 97% in 2017 (acceptance limit 90%), with 6/120 and 4/120 incongruent results, respectively. The agreement for the diagnostic hypothesis was satisfactory with a full agreement being reached in 5 out of 16 cases. Conclusions: The creation of a tool to assess the agreement of readers providing morphological evaluations is a valuable step forward in ensuring patient safety and quality laboratory medicine