Are You Shutting Out Talent?

I can't speak for the MT's, however, I have been a Cancer Registrar for 18 years, and a CTR for 15 years, and this was after I completed my AS in HIM.  We all want new talent in the Registry field, however, potential candidates should know a Cancer Registrar is so much more than completing the courses and obtaining your CTR credential.  Physicians are amazed at many of the multitude of tasks we can complete and the knowledge we can share.  Many times potential candidates are familiar with the rising salaries of registrars and the "glory" points of the job which are usually only attained by the Registry Coordinator, but they aren't aware of how many times our different coding sets change whether it be AJCC, MPH, ICD-O, ROADS to FORDS, benign brain tumors, or of course the ACoS Cancer Program Standards.  So, to be honest, when you think you have something down, it will change.  This job requires a huge amount of dedication and passion, and an everyday need to learn.  This is not an easy job.  I have performed the duties of almost every job within an HIM Department, and none of them, including the Manager of HIM requires the knowledge, skill and experience that is required to be a successful and knowledgeable Cancer Registrar.  Unfortunately, no one tells prospective registrars it takes a minimum of one year working in the field before you can truly feel comfortable with job duties of a registar, and it takes about five years before one is comfortable with any of the tasks that may be asked of a CTR within the Cancer Registry.  

I hope you all have that passion, drive and a sincere desire to learn and that you will consider joining in our career field in the future!  I just wanted to clarify a few things that are sometimes left out when others choose to see the lives of Cancer Registrars as the "Gravy Train" of HIM.  Good Luck to You All!

As a supervisor who hires coders and transcriptionists, I always use pre-testing along with other criteria.  The pre-test shows me where I can begin to place a new employee in the "training process".    Some new employees need basic help and others are ready to go with just an orientation.   I believe this works well for my new hires as well as for the department and other employees too.

I change the pre-test periodically but do not change it midstream when interviewing several applicants for the same job.  Its a good thing.

As a former mid-level business manager in manufacturing, I am new to the world of health information systems and medical coding in particular.  %0d%0aHaving pre-hire testing as part of the evaluation process can be helpful, but I think it is only part of the process. Certainly there has to be a foundational level of understanding of the job responsibilities.  I think an employer does themselves a disservice, however, by looking only at technical expertise at the expense of ignoring potential.  Am I a non-starter for a position because I have no experience in that field?  Not considering that I have (or will be achieving) a diploma in medical coding, backed up by many years of other managerial experience can eliminate a well-qualified, and easily transitioned candidate to the job.  %0d%0aIt also seems that employers do have the responsibility if they are going to use such testing to make sure that it accurately reflects the demands of the current work environment - reviewing the testing mechanism to make sure it stays current with the demand.%0d%0aIt will be interesting to learn more about this field, and the challenges of breaking into the field, once I have my education further along.

My opinion is that there is a possibility of shutting out talent depending on the type of company you are dealing with and the type of employment exam that is administered and how it is administered.  I wrote an unpublished article on the issues of experience and the new graduates and how employers generally feel about new graduates and the reasons that they feel that way.

But I personally feel that students fresh out of school can be adequately prepared to ace the employment exam and "shutting out talent" should not be an issue with well-constructed and administered employment exams.  I try to discuss how to handle employment exams as well as other job seeking skills at every opportunity that I have with my students because a major problem is that many students are not taught how to handle the processes of looking for a job.  I have an article entitled "Surviving your employment testing experience" and an article entitled "Experience vs. Knowledge Base."  I am willing to share these articles with anyone interested (Email: cmbenjamin@bellsouth)  

The bottom line is that if an employment test is the reason that a student is shut out,  that outcome may be a blessing in disguise because why would a student want to work in that type of environment where their lack of experience is constantly highlighted and the knowledge that they do have is belittled.  But a company that has a well-constructed exam and adheres to professional means of administering the test and generally evaluating each candidate will likely not shut out a student with significant potential.

Christina

Well I read the article and have some experience in taking these exams.  My thoughts are that the AHIMA organization has put this exam in place to prevent employment discrimination.

EEOC and many human resource document that pre-testing is a discriminatory practice.  AHIMA has been critizes because an objective organization (not AHIMA) scores the exam.

AHIMAs explanation is that the CCS exam is scored by an independant examinter to prevent favortism or prejudice.  So I am a little confused as to why employers continued to use exams that could be evidence that some qualified people are turned away.

I've heard many of these same "pro-testing" arguments before the article.  The only thing new is that we're treating it like it's novel or this brilliant, sustainable idea.

Employers rarely update their assessment exams.  Those I took as a consultant two years ago are the exact same assessments being sent out currently.  That indicates it's unlikely any of the answer keys have been substantially updated.  This is cause for concern if you happen to be a candidate on the tail end of "failing" score.  Let's face it, few practices, facilities or agencies have the time or human resource to proof and/or update the code sets every year, if not every six months.  The folks scoring them usually know very little about coding and couldn't vouch for any content.

Carol was brave to call you and present her opinions.  Although I wouldn't necessarily classify employers as "lazy," I would venture to remark that they can be stingy with information.  Unforunately, regardless of how hard a candidate tries, how much personal money he/she puts forth and with little effect from the education he/she received, one cannot stay abreast of coding issues alone.  Anyone working outside of a particular specialty must rely on employers to make available all necessary information (Coding Clinic, CPT Assistant and many other tools).  Most coders I know do not work for an entity that will supply information on the industry at large or outside of what's described in a job description.

There's only so much the individual and local professional associations can do to educate.  Employers must be realistic with their expectations and that's not likely to happen.