Welcome to Health Care POV | sign in | join
Press Start: Lead an Empowered Life as a Clinical Laboratorian

Medical Lab Science to be Featured on Television
September 7, 2014 7:10 PM by Glen McDaniel


 

The medical laboratory science   profession will be featured on the Leading Edge, an award-winning program on public television that examines impactful subjects and helps to educate the public about topics they might not otherwise know about; or know very little about 

 

A glitzy, professional video prepared by ASCP does a great job of explaining the MLS profession and highlighting the role medical laboratorians play in quality healthcare. Especially encouraging is the fact that the speakers include not only pathologists but medical scientists /medical technologists as well.  Several times the script specifically references medical lab scientists and also makes use of the much touted  fact that more than 70 percent of medical decisions depend directly on laboratory tests.

 

The piece jointly produced by ASCP and the Leading Edge production team also emphasizes that although not generally know most diseases have a component that lends itself to the use of laboratory testing in diagnosis, treatment and management. “Essentially 100 percent of the patients entering hospitals across the United States today are dependent upon the work of the medical laboratory team,” says one of the speakers, Lynnette G. Chakkaphak, MS, MT (ASCP).

 

It is admitted that medical lab professionals have the expertise to weigh in authoritatively on test utilization and interpretation.

 

This is a well done piece that we can all be proud of. It is balanced, accurate and professionally executed. It is slated to be broadcast on PBS sometime this month. Please share  this video and the information about the upcoming program with your colleagues as well as friends and family.  

1 comments »     
What Do Doctors Want from the Laboratory- Part 2?
August 25, 2014 11:50 PM by Glen McDaniel


In the last blog we discussed a CDC survey addressing the difficulties many providers face in ordering and interpreting laboratory tests. The providers admit to having significant challenges in both ordering tests and interpreting laboratory test results. They routinely seek help from various sources, with the laboratory being at the bottom of the list. Further they agree laboratory consultation would be a logical adjunct in helping navigate the information maze, but they don’t go that route for several reasons; none related to the ability or expertise of the laboratory.

 

In the area of test interpretation, physicians find the following most useful: followup with patients face to face, review of patients’ histories and consulting e-references. Asked why labs fall way down on their list of consults, the respondents indicate among other inconveniences  of calling the lab is the long time it takes to get someone on the phone who is able or willing to answer questions.

 

One physician gave this example of I what he terms inefficiency, ” I called the lab to ask about the swab needed for a particular culture I wanted to order. It took several minutes before I got somebody in microbiology who knew what they were talking about to give me an answer." He emphasized that doctors have very little time to spare hanging on the phone or being transferred to several people to receive simple guidance.

 

Another physician pointed out that many physicians are not even aware that the lab might have high-level resources to help them when they need it. Labs need to make it known when they offer such services, he emphasized.

 

It seems, therefore, like labs need to offer consultative services, make it known to physicians that such services exist and also make the process more convenient and efficient.

 

Several analysts discussed the use of information technology (IT)  to automate certain functions that would both facilitate consultation and force physician behavior towards better utilization management.

 

Areas in which IT could be useful include reflex testing, trending, interpretive comments and physician order entry (POE) with electronic prompts (test definitions, suggestions, soft  stops and hard stops).  These require medical staff leadership upfront but, once in place, can provide valuable education and  help to manage behaviors basically on auto-pilot.

 

One interesting concept discussed by co-author Paul Epner, a consultant interested in the link between lab services and patient outcomes, is that of offering trend reports of various providers. For example, IT can easily track and compare the ordering practices of various providers. Do all cardiologists in a practice order tests with the same frequency? Does one order CKMB while the others order troponin? Does one physician order expensive reference tests which could be done on an outpatient basis? Who orders daily profiles when individual tests would suffice? Physicians can be pretty competitive and critical, so this type of report can help in guiding test utilization as well.

 

Every laboratory should monitor physician calls: what do they want to know? What do they seem to have most problems with? How fast does the lab resolve physician concerns? Are resources available in terms of best-practices literature or an expert in the laboratory? These are always prime areas where stepping up and offering help would be appreciated and contribute to physician satisfaction as well as better patient care.

 

So according to this survey, there is concrete proof that physicians do need our help, and would  gladly consult with us. In fact most would be grateful for our help. But we have to stay current in MLS to be comfortable providing factual information, we must be willing to help, we must make it known to physicians that help exists, and we must respond to requests (or evidence of knowledge deficit) in a timely manner. Since we are all busy, we should utilize automated aids when possible. In both the short and long term, IT is a powerful, but vastly underutilized, arrow in our quiver.            

 

1 comments »     
What Do Doctors Want from the Laboratory?
August 17, 2014 3:05 PM by Glen McDaniel

As anyone reads my writing knows I am a huge proponent of a more independent practice model for Medical Laboratory Scientists (and MLTs to a degree). A component of that model would be closer interaction with physicians and a willingness and ability to consult with physicians offering advice and information on medical laboratory testing.

Often when I make this bold assertion, I receive one of four reactions:

  • A blank stare. What are you talking about?

  • I am a tech, not a doctor. That suggests discomfort, lack of preparation or lack of knowledge

  • He/she is the one who went to medical school. This might be an unwillingness to use valuable time “teaching” professionals who should already have that knowledge. There might also be a willingness to give up information freely to someone who would then use it without giving credit.

  • They don’t need our help. This last one may be a combination of  the above or simply incredulity that doctors would “stoop” to asking for help in any way

Coincidentally, 2 studies crossed my desk in the past couple of weeks; both vindicating my long-held viewpoint and in fact giving in objective terms when and how doctors would need help from the laboratory.

 

The first study was more of a survey conducted by the CDC’s Clinical Laboratory Integration into Healthcare Collaborative (CLIHC).  The survey evolved from several focus groups conducted by CLIHC and sent to over 30,000 primary care practitioners (PCPs). They had a 5.6 percent response rate, that is 1,768 PCPs responded (Journal of American Board of Family Medicine 2014; 27:268-74).


Of the findings, 2 struck me pretty significantly.  Even though PCPs see a large number of healthy patients including younger people and well adults, they reported ordering laboratory tests in 31 percent of their patients. Further, they had difficulty ordering tests and interpreting results in 15% and 8.3 percent of patients respectively. Those percentages might seem small, but the authors of the study point out that there are more than 300 million PCP visits in the US annually. That’s a lot of patients potentially having the incorrect test ordered or results misinterpreted.

 

To further place this in context,John Hickner, MD, lead author of the study who is professor and head of clinical family medicine at University of Chicago Medical School, said in Quality Improvement terms (e.g. LEAN) even a 1% error is unacceptable, yet this study shows a total error of over 20 percent. “This is a big problem,” Dr Hickner says.

 

Another huge area of concern for doctors is the cost of tests. They receive pressure from hospital administrators and patients to contain cost, but they have no idea how much different tests cost.

 

So how do physicians typically cope with knowledge gaps in these areas? They use e-references, refer patients to specialists (you handle this!) or use curbside consults (John what do you think of this patient's results?) Specifically asked about consulting the laboratory they said that lab consults would be very valuable and would be welcome. However they do not do it because it is not offered. Despite the perceived lack of that option, an optimistic and persistent 6 percent of doctors do still try to consult the lab, however.

 

I would welcome feedback about your opinions on these findings and I will continue discussing the findings of this important study. I will also describe the second (totally separate) study I mentioned in my introduction.  Some questions to ponder: specifically why do physicians think lab consults are not available? Do those intrepid souls who seek out the lab find the lab helpful? Do they ever change their mind after speaking to a laboratorian?

 

We’ll discuss those and other questions in my next two blogs.

1 comments »     
The Benefits of Intergenerational Teams
August 9, 2014 9:06 PM by Glen McDaniel
 

As the workforces ages we find many Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964) are retiring and the workforce is increasingly made up of younger individuals. The interesting thing about different generations working together is that values and even work ethics will vary. Oldsters (Boomers like myself) tend to assess younger workers as being sloppy, unprofessional and egotistical.

 

The reality, though, is that very often younger laboratorians and other workers just don’t see themselves as “married” to a job the way Boomers are.They are early adopters to technology and tend to eagerly welcome new “toys” in the lab rather than see them as just additional instruments to learn, maintain and troubleshoot.

 

Post-Boomer generations tend to live by the axiom, “We work to live, not live to work.” They realize they are very likely to have several jobs during their work life and do not have unwavering loyalty to any one organization. But that does not make them unprofessional slouches. In fact we raised many of them to be the independent individuals they are.

  • Generation X: Defined as the generation born between 1965 and 1980, members of this group are more likely than their predecessors to have been raised in single-parent households or by two working parents. Having grown up playing video games and using computers, they may see technology as allowing them to work smarter and tend to use technology in daily life: to schedule, make goals, tote files around, make presentations and communicate.
  • Millennials: Born between 1981 and 2000, members of this group are also known as Generation Y or Generation Next. As noted in a 2007 Pew Research report Millennials have been “shaped by an unprecedented revolution in technology and dramatic events both at home and abroad.” Gen Y is more diverse, racially and ethnically, than previous generations and is often seen as being more tolerant on various issues, the Pew report found. For Millennials, the line separating their work life and leisure time may be less defined and they may be more likely to move from one job to another with no qualms.

Generation Y individuals are much more likely to entertain and accept divergent views and are less conformist. They might question rules and find it logical to make exceptions to rules based on specific circumstances. They also expect management to understand why the need for work-life balance might prevent them from sacrificing for the good or convenience of the organization.

 

Whether you are the manager or peer of a member of an intergenerational team, it helps if you are willing to accept certain realities without being too judgmental of those not exactly like yourself. Different perspectives prevent the stagnation of group think. So the “young ‘uns” may be different, but that also means they offer different benefits, making the entire team stronger.

 

So, how do you cope with that Generation X or Millennial  for the good of your laboratory? A University of Notre Dame business school pamphlet offers the following suggestions.

  • Value individual strengths: Lose the stereotypes that come with labeling groups of people. Instead, maximize the potential of each member of your team by understanding and appreciating his or her background, skills and goals.
  • Provide training: It’s not enough to simply assemble an intergenerational team and expect it to work flawlessly and seamlessly. Provide awareness training and allow employees to learn about their differences, as well as their similarities.
  • Create partnerships: Establish mentoring partnerships among the generations. For example, team a tech-savvy Millennial with a baby boomer who values technology but needs some hands-on training.
  • Be flexible: Acknowledge and, if possible, accommodate various work styles. That may include offering flexible hours and work-from-home options. It might also involve catering to different food and drink preferences in the company cafeteria, or providing wireless connections for employees’ personal mobile devices or charging stations for their electric vehicles.

If you follow these suggestions, what is generally perceived as an annoyance and a negative can be turned into a huge benefit.

2 comments »     
Less is More: Time to Discontinue Redundant Processes
August 3, 2014 7:28 PM by Glen McDaniel
 

As laboratorians we tend to be masters (and mistresses) of multitasking and completing tasks. Ever wondered why we have so many checklists, worksheets and forms? Computerization has simply moved some of that documentation to a new format.

 

OK, so as scientists we do need to have checks and balances, we must document, we must meet regulatory requirements. However too often we have become slaves of “always doing something and writing it down.”  We proudly use “if it’s not documented it wasn’t done” as a mantra.

 

A few years ago, I reviewed some point of care (POC) documentation on the nursing floor of a hospital and found out that for an entire week, quality control was out on several tests, yet the nurses performed patient testing daily anyway. The Director of Nursing defended her nurses by saying her nurses followed the laboratory policy of “performing QC daily.” It took several attempts to convince intelligent healthcare providers that the laboratory did not simply want them to complete a task to be checked off on a list. They had to go one step further and evaluate the each QC result to make sure it was in range/acceptable; or troubleshoot and correct the problem until the QC was in range. Then (and only then) should patient results be performed.

 

I am not suggesting that any laboratorian would be guilty of such an act, but it does point out how task-obsessed we can be. We sometimes have procedures or old practices that have long outlived their usefulness and logic. I consulted for a laboratory that had worksheets for every test, although some instruments were interfaced with the LIS. Other manual test results were entered directly into the computer along with the QC result.  Yet they had all these reams of manual worksheets. Asked why, the over-worked staff responded in various ways: the state required it, it was a CAP standard, or they needed to be able to pull monthly volumes of each test performed. As I drilled down, one honest person finally admitted, “We have always done it that way so I don’t want to be the one to break the pattern, just in case.” Just in case of what?

 

Another lab I know of has a policy that requires that 5 different "licensed individuals" check blood for transfusion: an MT/MLS rechecks the phlebotomist, another MLS verifies the correct units are documented and tagged, an RN (not even an LPN) signs out the blood  at the blood bank with an MLS, and then cross checks the unit with another RN before the blood is hung.  That sounds pretty safe, but it is a very labor intensive process. Worse it does not do what it purports to do. Supposing the phlebotomist draws the wrong patient (that’s not checked), suppose the first MLS tags the wrong unit of blood (the second MLS visually verifies the blood type and unit numbers not the actual crossmatch), the nurse signing out the blood again does the same thing (just verifies the numbers in the sign-out log matches the units in her hand. The nurses hanging the blood cannot verify that was in fact the patient the phlebotomist drew. So a long, complicated process with lots of paper and several signatures does not always ensure quality.

 

Part of quality assurance should be to examine processes on a regular basis to see what purpose they actually serve: clinical, quality, regulatory, financial, or something else. Can you get volumes or data from the computer instead of hanging on to a manual 15 year old worksheet for example? Could you simplify that bloodbank process while ensuring greater greater patient safety?

 

CMS as well as regulatory agencies like CAP constantly revisit issues like the need to run QC: how many levels and how frequently. What documents need to be maintained and for how long? Is any process causing undue hardship, eating up too much staff time and is too labor intensive?

 

As we try to reduce costs, do more with less and try to bring some relief to an older, tired and overworked workforce, we need to re-examine processes for redundancy. If you cannot give a valid reason related to patient care, quality, regulatory or financial requirement, then rethink that process you are hanging on so tenaciously. Even processes that need to be continued still need to be examined to see if they can be revamped or streamlined in some way. Some processes can be discontinued, modified or documented in simpler ways or via an electronic format (versus paper).

 

Having a worklist to complete or because we have always done it this way are no longer valid reasons for retaining and perpetuating those long-standing process.

3 comments »     
Controlling Laboratory Overutilization Through Formularies
August 2, 2014 3:03 PM by Glen McDaniel
 

The overutilization of laboratory tests continues to be the bane of laboratory and hospital management. Overutilization is troublesome for several reasons, of course.

 

-Laboratory professionals are frustrated by clear misuse of tests and sometimes needless repitition of previously performed tests e.g. daily profiles or repeat of send out tests before the original are on the chart

 

-Hospital management are acutely aware that overutilization increases costs. Organizations that receive a per diem rate from Medicare or a managed care policy, for example, are just eating into their profit margin with every service (including laboratory test) that they perform.

 

Sometimes patients are not discharged as scheduled  in order to perform additional tests or to wait for test results. Some tests are not necessary; others are important but can be performed on an outpatient basis.

 

-Physicians do not benefit from overutilization because they have to address any abnormal results that turn up during the process. They also are under pressure from administration to keep costs down and to discharge patients ASAP.

 

-Patients are inconvenienced and suffer discomfort when subjected to frequent lab draws, and they may have a heightened sense of anxiety while waiting for “yet another test result.” They do not always understand why a result will vary from day to day and worry needlessly.. One cause of idiopathic anemia is frequent blood draws while in the hospital.

 

So what is a laboratory to do? Since physicians drive test ordering it is important to get physician input and to co-opt physician champions to tackle the problem. If you have a strong, knowledgeable pathologist that helps. But even absent such a person, it is possible for the laboratory to gather information regarding the points raised above and also refer liberally  to independent sources describing best practices in laboratory utilization.

 

One method that a few laboratories have adopted successfully is the use of formularies similar to drug formularies. It is a common concept that just about every hospital pharmacy has a formulary of “acceptable and available medications.” Physicians must pick from that list. Any deviation must be approved by a committee-or at least be honored only after detailed justification and documentation.

 

The information technology folks play a significant role in forcing physicians to stick to formularies. If they try to order an off formulary drug-or even an off-label drug available in the formulary- they may receive a soft stop or a hard stop in the computer system.

 

The same concept can be used for laboratory testing. If a physician orders some tests (no longer available, inappropriate, very complex, very costly, ordered too frequently for that patient) they can receive the same hard or soft stop. Either the test is not allowed at all, or the ordering physician needs further documentation and approval in order to have that test done.

 

It is very likely (as happens in pharmacy with off-formulary and off-label use of medication) that some physicians will protest, be slow adopters or will call the laboratory directly for an explanation of rationale; or even to over-ride the hard stop. They will pull rank and try to be exempt from the rule. Pharmacists are very adept at fielding such calls. In order for laboratory formularies to work it is important for laboratorians to be equally knowledgeable and confident when speaking to possibly frustrated and aggressive physicians.

 

In today’s climate of high cost, innovative operational methods and overutilization of lab tests that this is an approach worth pursuing.

2 comments »     
Ebola Outbreak: What Do You Tell Friends?
July 29, 2014 2:43 PM by Glen McDaniel

The most recent Ebola Virus outbreak has made the national news. This highly contagious virus of the family Filoviridae, genus Ebolavirus causes a hemorrhagic illness that approaches 90 percent mortality.

 

This latest episode in West Africa has claimed the lives of over 600 people, but has made the news largely because it is the worst-ever outbreak in history and two Americans have been infected.

 

Friends have been asking me: What is Ebola exactly? Why is it so deadly? How is it spread? Are we at risk here in the USA?


While not an expert in virology or epidemiology, I take that imposed educational role seriously. I keep up to date as a scientist, interested in disease and health. I give basic, factual information when asked and then refer friends to credible sources like the CDC website. I also vet popular news sites and endorse links that give current updates, explain Ebola, summarize aspects of epidemiology, and discuss risk in a sober yet non-alarmist way.


I am curious: what role do you think medical laboratorians should play in educating friends and family? What do you do?  Are you less interested if the “disease du jour” is affecting only unknown people from faraway places and poses little risk to the US?



2 comments »     
Are You More Than a Passive Technician?
July 26, 2014 5:59 PM by Glen McDaniel
 

I recently saw a discussion on a Medical Laboratory page on a popular social networking site. Someone started off a thread detailing an encounter with a nurse in which a request was made that was so ludicrous it was funny. Others weighed in with accounts of their personal experiences: mostly questions or requests from nursing based on ignorance of laboratory procedures and interpretation of results.  This sort of story-telling is a favorite pastime of medical laboratorians as we know.

 

I made a brief comment indicating that we needed to project ourselves more as knowledgeable professionals and less as “passive technicians” who followed orders mindlessly and offered no opinions at all. Sadly, one person took umbrage to my use of the term "technician" and accused me of belittling the role of MLTs such as herself. This is despite the clear context and even the blatant hint that “technician” was in quotes, indicating I was quoting someone else’s words.

 

Nurses and others on the healthcare team often refer to medical laboratorians at any level as ”the lab” or “technicians” and suggest implicitly and, sometimes explicitly, that as members of the ancillary staff we do not have much to offer in terms of independent thought or knowledge. This is clearly not true and I am bothered when we buy into this interpretation and passively (there is that term again) stand by and let others wallow in their ignorance or persist in their misconception of who we are.

 

It is sad we can muster up lots of whining, sense of self-victimization, hypersensitivity and criticism of each other while we passively let others misjudge and undervalue us and the contribution we make to the patient care. More than our ego is at stake. When we are not fully utilized, patient care suffers as well.

 

Members of the profession at every level- phlebotomist, MLT, MLS, specialist, pathologist- are all valuable and each has a unique body of knowledge from which they can draw and enlighten those who do not know. I have many friends who are physicians and they almost unanimously appreciate when I enlighten them about the proper selection, use and interpretation of laboratory tests. They are always surprised when I speak about our education or detail processes that explain turnaround time, how reference intervals are derived, quality control and the like. Am I unique in that regard? I refuse to believe that. Clinicians need and welcome our help, but we often do not give it. Instead we roll our eyes and joke among ourselves.

 

If someone calls us “technicians” as a way of relegating us to a vague inferior class of button pushers we do not have to accept it. Our energy should be directed at undoing that perception and not internalizing that label. It should certainly not be squandered on attacking those who work tirelessly to advance the profession. That is misdirected energy.

 

Each “stupid” question or request, each term of denigration is an opportunity to teach and to demonstrate that you are more than a “technician.”

 

8 comments »     
Here's to Your Independence
July 4, 2014 1:43 PM by Glen McDaniel

I do not often repeat posts, blog or articles. However I have received several requests for a repost of this blog. One kind reader from Massachusets wrote, "That is the singular most emotional call I have read in a while. Please reprint on July 4th. Do not just refer to it give a link. Please reprint it so when anyone logs on they will see it on the front page of the ADVANCE blogs."

 

Well, for that kind reader and others, less effusive but still requesting a reprint, here goes: 

 

On July 4, 1776 the United States declared independence from Britain and a vigorous new democracy was born. This year we celebrate our 236th birthday and our founding fathers are probably sputtering in wonderment, “Who knew this experiment in democracy would be so successful?”

When American patriots chose to defy King, Crown, a powerful power structure, and even history itself, the conventional wisdom was that the fledgling movement could not survive. There was little more than a deep desire to be free, a belief in the power of determination and the shared aspiration to be independent.

Independence is a scary thought.  Whether it is a country, a profession, an organization or an individual, the status quo can be safe because it represents a known quantity. One learns how to cope with the expected; it is the unexpected that presents the greatest challenges. Psychologists describe this as the “better the devil you know” phenomenon and posit that it explains why even victims of horrendous treatment will opt to remain in what might seem to everyone to be an obviously untenable situation.

 It is not that our forefathers had all the answers, or were imbued with extraordinary strength and courage; it is simply that their desire for a better life superseded their fear. As executives in healthcare, beholden to so many masters and powerbrokers, we are often tentative about moving beyond our fears.

As a profession, we obsess about how we are beholden to pathologists, the government, regulatory agencies and other healthcare professionals. How can we deny the "reality" that we are negatively impacted and held back by so many?

One consideration often overlooked is the very preoccupation with the “reality” prevents us from changing it and moving forward. What would be the result if we chose not to be subservient or subject to the whims and fancies of others? The strong likelihood is we would be closer to our dream of a vibrant, independent, proud profession. The worst case scenario is we would be where we are right now.

Personally and professionally, individually and as a profession, I wish you a Happy Independence.

 

2 comments »     
8 Tips to Improve Your Conversational Effectiveness
June 28, 2014 7:07 PM by Glen McDaniel
 

I am sure you have all heard the lament, “He/she just does not know how to talk to people.” As team members laboratorians have to interact with each other and convey information not only to fellow laboratorians (peers and supervisors) but to their customers outside the lab as well.

 

Managers, especially brand new managers, just promoted from the bench, might find it challenging or awkward to have those difficult conversations where someone (possibly a former peer) has to be counseled or told unpleasant news. Supervisors also have to arbitrate conflict among co-workers. They also represent the lab to outsiders and have an extra responsibility to present a professional, conciliatory tone.

 

No matter the nature of the conversation, some very simple rules can help. EAP Resources, an Atlanta firm providing Employee Assistance Programs to various organizations, offers some very simple conversation tips.

 

  

1. Use the other person's name from time to time during the talking, such as, “I agree with you, Betty, and will support your proposal.” Our names are precious to us and nearly everyone has a feel-good experience when being addressed by name. “Gary, would you call me tomorrow with the quote?”

 

2. Instead of asking general questions such as, “How's it going?” ask specific personal questions like, “How does your son like dental school?” Being specific shows that you remember details about matters important to the other person, such as the family, special interests, and certain individual challenges. Routine and general questions usually elicit only routine responses like, “Fine thanks.”

 

3. Lighten up the talk with a smile. Even with serious topics, a friendly smile can be appropriate and can add a measure of good will that is helpful in advancing understanding. Being overly-serious tends to suppress feelings and makes the tone of our conversation seem flat and aloof. Relax, drop your shoulders and breathe.

 

4. Respect people's time for talking so that you don't hold them hostage. If you're uncertain ask, “Do you have a few minutes to talk now?” This is especially useful for telephone conversations, or even for someone in the lab who may be busy trying to complete a time-limited task. Work with their schedule.

 

5. Give the other party their turn to talk. You can do this by talking in paragraphs, not chapters, and then signaling it's their turn with a question like, “What are your thoughts?” Do not talk over the other person or even answer questions before the questioner has finished asking.

 

6. When you're with someone, give your full attention. The gift of your presence and attention is quietly powerful and strengthens relationships. Fully engaged listening is rare in our multi-tasking worlds of work and home. When you listen, just listen. Don't wander.  Even constantly averted eyes or “got to take this call” interruptions can break the mood, cause interruption in flow and be perceived as a lack of interest-or worse, disrespect.

 

7. End your conversation gracefully and not abruptly. When appropriate, thank or compliment the other person when you are ending. “I really enjoyed talking with you and understand the situation much better now. Thanks a lot.”

 

8.  If possible, recap what you heard and set a time for follow-up. “So, Bella you are suggesting working 32 hours on weekends and being off an extra day during the week? I will look at the schedule you created and get back to you by next Wednesday or Thursday. Thanks for being creative and please feel free to let me know if you have any other ideas.”

 

These little things add a quality of civility and care to any conversation. Ultimately, they mean a lot because your attitudes tend to be reciprocated. Some individuals just simply have a knack for easy conversation; others don’t.  If you make an effort to incorporate certain phrases and to follow some simple rules you will be rewarded with a much more harmonious and effective workplace.

0 comments »     
What Message are You Sending?
June 21, 2014 3:33 PM by Glen McDaniel
 

In business school my marketing professor was fond of saying, “Marketing is everything.” It was tempting to see this view as the opinion of an overzealous marketer who was trying to convince students of the need to create complex and obtuse business/marketing plans.  But as I continued the course, and long after graduation I realized that to a degree he was right. Marketing is used in several aspects of our lives.

 

Look at the news: some politician with whom we disagree or who appears to be unpopular sweeps the race with a landslide victory.  Companies create a brand that we instantly recognize through a slogan or even a diagram (think of the Golden Arches or the logo of an apple with a bite taken out of it). Celebrities who do something obnoxious or spout off in a politically incorrect way often hire high-priced fixers to rehabilitate their image. That is all marketing. Marketing can be used for or against your cause and is often based on the strength of the marketing campaign rather than on any objective measure of accuracy or reality.

 

What does this have to do with medical laboratory science? Well, I think as a profession we too often pitch and perpetuate a negative marketing campaign against ourselves.  When an “old-timer” tells an enthusiastic new graduate or intern how horrible this profession is, that’s marketing. If someone who has been around for years states that, given a choice, they would have chosen another profession, advises the graduate to pursue another vocation and keeps up a mantra of how burnt out they are, what effect do you think that is having both on the youngster and on other’s perception of our profession?

 

Very often outside the lab, administrators and other members of the healthcare team refer to us in inaccurate ways. They might call us “technicians,” mischaracterize the work we do, minimize our value or even re-state some negative association. We do not have to agree with them; but if we let it slide, we are engaging in a negative marketing campaign against ourselves.

 

Many observers think everyone in a white coat is a “lab technician” with equal expertise and scope of practice, the lab is always losing specimens, every delay in the ED is due to waiting for lab results, and doctors send specimens to a black hole where machines automatically regurgitate results-with no input from a thinking human being. How many times have we heard this line of thinking and sat silently by while it is repeated ad nauseum?

 

Professionals in healthcare are called by their names: nurses, doctors, physical therapists, pharmacists. But we are generically “the lab”, a room in the basement. Until recently our week in April was called “Lab Week” with no mention of the professionals who actually practice the profession. I never use the misleading term, Lab Week, for that very reason.

 

When someone talks about a great hospital experience in my presence or on my Facebook page and thanks all the doctors and nurses, I jokingly say, "Thank all the medical laboratory scientists providing the information used to diagnose and treat the patient. And, thanks to the doctors, nurses and others as well.” I am only partially joking when I reframe the statement; I am practicing deliberate marketing that makes people think a little.

 

Sometimes my smart-alecky comment elicits dead silence, sometimes a chuckle, but very often it starts a conversation where I can educate-and yes, market, our profession. We are all marketers, broadcasting a message. Choose your message wisely.

1 comments »     
Managing Cross-Disciplinary Teams is a Required Skill
May 31, 2014 8:43 PM by Glen McDaniel

 

Those of us in healthcare have worked in silos for so long it has become the norm. In fact we justify it by saying due to the complexity of our body of knowledge, others just will not understand. Physically and psychologically we are more comfortable sharing space and projects with colleagues who are like us.

 

Ideas are shared but usually within the group. Even high quality outcomes tend to have just the perspective of our peers as opposed to any other stakeholders on the outside. We serve on teams and committees, but that’s not fully cross-disciplinary because we tend to come together, give input, accept or reject ideas and then move apart to continue life as usual.

 

It is becoming popular to learn how to cope with inter-generational teams as the workplace changes. It is common to have two or three generations of workers side by side in the same department. But again, that is not inter-disciplinary.

 

In recent interactions with clients and colleagues I have seen the following odd bedfellows, if you will:

-A radiological technologist in charge of the laboratory (in a non-licensure state)

-Point of Care duties shared by a nurse coordinator and an MLS analyst

-A pathologist who is Director of Diagnostics (with the medical laboratory, imaging and sports medicine reporting to him)

-A pharmacist substituting for a pathologist for coagulation consults for laboratory testing

 

In the above situations, laboratorians are forced (“made to”  as opposed to “coerced”) to interact with nonlaboratorians in a significant and ongoing way. This is new territory.

 

Cross-disciplinary work teams are being increasingly created out of the necessity for leaner staffing, need for increased productivity and efficiency.

 

Mark Lanfear, a global practice leader at KellyServices, a company that specializes in providing workplace solutions, believes successful interdisciplinary teamwork always begins with a committed manager.

 

His prescription

-Managers must make the commitment and deliberate effort to start thinking in a more interdisciplinary fashion. They must consider various options and direct the team to think of a “common front.” What is the desired outcome? What do all the stakeholders have in common? What perspectives do they want to consider/include in the project?

-The manager must explicitly communicate the cross-disciplinary nature of the project and the interconnectedness of all team members. There are no winners or losers or head honchos based on the silos they previously occupied

-Make it clear that in the same way that communication and working together strengthen the outcome, failure to fully engage will hurt the outcome.

 

This cross-pollination might be a new, even uncomfortable method of relating. However as laboratorians we will find that this is an increasingly common, efficient and beneficial way of working.

0 comments »     
Why License Tour Guides but not Laboratorians?
May 11, 2014 1:24 PM by Glen McDaniel
 

A recent article in the Economist made me chuckle. It covers in a deliberately humorous way, the story that tour guides in Washington, DC must be licensed, or face stiff fines.

 

The idea is that a certain body of knowledge is needed and the public can be fleeced or shortchanged if everyone and their uncle start offering tours of the city to gullible, fee-paying tourists.  If you think about it, tour guides probably need to be trained, there might even be a good reason for some standardization of facts. But how detrimental could it be if a guide does not seek the extra training required and pay the government a fee to be licensed?

 

The reality is that many careers (which cannot even realistically be called professions) are required to be licensed. Generally,  licensure is required to protect the public in some way. For many professions it is important that there be a demonstrated minimum level of knowledge and that service is delivered according to guidelines. Why doesn’t medical laboratory lab science fall into such an important category?

 

Can you think of a situation in which an untrained-or undertrained- individual could provide incorrect results that could affect patient care? What about providing blood and blood products? Why does the government not have a vested interest in protecting the public health un such areas?

 

The Economist article continues, “In the 1950s only one American worker in 20 needed a permit from the government; today that figure is around one in three. Some jobs, such as doctors, clearly need strict controls. But some states require licenses for florists and interior designers.”

 

They could have added barbers, masseuses, cosmetologists, realtors, electricians, nail technicians and a host of others. In fact, I could go on and on with that list. What is ironic is that medical laboratory science is missing from the long list. There are still, in 2014, only a small handful of states (and US possessions) that license laboratorians.

   

The distraction often used by opponents of personnel licensure is that of the constantly increasing cost of running government. I have suggested in the past, and still believe, that states can minimize the administrative costs of licensure by using reciprocity (as nurses, attorneys and many other professions do). If you have a “clean” license in one state you will be accepted by another state without too many hassles. Instead of developing and controlling their own exams, states can accept recent national certification in lieu of a state exam, except in those very unusual areas where the state requires some narrow body of knowledge.  Once a data base is set up, a clerk reporting to a volunteer Board of Licensure can monitor licensure as just a part of his/her job. Cost can be minimal.

 

Continuing education can be mandated, including issues that relate to state law or healthcare issues that the state feels are especially important.

 

None of us wants to pay any more fees than we have to. But what if for a nominal sum you would be licensed, ensuring job protection from unqualified competitors and protecting the public health at the same time? I fear that the protest against paying a small licensure fee has made the fight for licensure more difficult and has unwittingly increased competition for jobs and artificially depressed wages. If an employer can legally take all comers, that diminishes the value of certified professionals. Sometimes we really can be our own worst enemies.

 

Is it really more important to license the guy who points out the Washington monument to a group of tourists than it is to license those individuals who use critical thinking and independent judgment to provide over 70 percent of information used to make medical decisions?

2 comments »     
In Celebration of Medical Laboratory Professionals Week
April 19, 2014 2:16 PM by Glen McDaniel
 

So, it’s that time of year again. This week we turn our attention to celebrating medical laboratorians.  It is the one week out of the year when we highlight the very important role played by those of us who practice in the laboratory.  Although the information we provide is so vital to healthcare, we are largely invisible. Arguably we provide the majority of the concrete data used in the diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of diseases. By the nature of our work and the technology used, we increasingly also help to rule out illnesses and advance wellness.

 

Each year I have written an article, a blog or two, and participated locally in the celebration of “our week.” Although some of my professional career has been spent outside of the laboratory, I always return to my roots and try to join in the celebration whenever I can.

 

Most of you work long hours, tirelessly, outside the attention and consciousness of the patient, day in and day out. With such little public recognition, I am all in favor of a week of celebration. In recent years, however, I have argued against turning inwards as the only means of celebrating. Mutual pats on the shoulder, wearing t-shirts, hosting baby-picture contests and attending lunches thrown by vendors are great. However, I also advocate aggressively promoting the profession so that others-doctors, nurses, other health professionals, administrators and patients-see who we are, how we think and what we do.

 

Teaching others starts with knowing our own history. For example, how about having a contest in your lab to see how many of your colleagues know the following facts:

 

-There are approximately 300,000 medical laboratory professionals in the USA

-Medical laboratory science emerged as a discrete profession around the 1920’s

-In 1975 a week of celebration, originally called National Medical Laboratory Week (NMLW), was initiated by the ASCLS, which back then was named ASMT. Over the years, other laboratory organizations have joined in cosponsoring the week

-In 2005 the organizers of the week changed the name to National Medical Laboratory Professionals Week; adding the “P” to emphasize the role of the professional, the individual. We are more than a room in the basement; after all, we are a profession.

-Each year, a different slogan was chosen to highlight the week. However, in 2010 a permanent theme was chosen: Laboratory Professionals Get Results. This is very catchy and creates a brand that we can all remember, relate to, and use all year long.

-The week is often called “Lab Week” for brevity and because the official name has changed so much. However that casual term probably perpetuates ignorance of the real name and helps to minimize the role of the professional.

-In 2012 the organizers removed the “N” (National) from the name which had been pretty unwieldy, you have to admit. So the current, correct name is Medical Laboratory Professionals Week (MLPW)

 

This week, celebrate, enjoy yourselves. But whenever possible, use the opportunity to introduce yourself and your profession to those who benefit from your dedication and talent, but know little about you and your skills.

 

Enjoy. Have Fun. Thank you for all you do, and Happy Medical Laboratory Professionals Week (MLPW) to you.

 

3 comments »     
Answering Your Questions About Patients' Direct Access to Lab Results
April 5, 2014 11:48 AM by Glen McDaniel
 

Since my blog last month regarding to the HHS mandate that laboratories must grant patients access to their lab results on request, my mailbox has been inundated with comments and questions. A few questions were asked by more than one writer and so I thought I would seek direct guidance from HHS and answer the most commonly asked questions here.

 

Doesn’t this new requirement reverse HIPAA?

 

No, both CLIA and HIPAA regulations have been adjusted to accommodate these requirements. HIPAA privacy rules had always sought to protect how patient information was secured and protected, and  specify under what conditions such information could be disclosed.  In the final rule published by HHS in February, some restrictions were removed from both HIPAA privacy rules and CLIA regulations.

 

This is a very specific requirement and does not negate, reverse or cancel HIPAA. Maintaining the security and confidentiality of patient results are still very much in effect.

 

Labs will still need to verify the patient's identity before releasing results. In cases where results are requested by a patient’s “personal representative,” the lab must verify both the identity and authority of the patient’s legal designee.

 

Is there no concern for how much this will cost labs?

 

I am not sure about concern from the federal government, but CMS does estimate that about 23,000 labs will be affected. It recognizes that processes, infrastructure and equipment might all have to change. The agency estimates that labs will receive between 175,000 and 3.5 million patient requests annually and the cost of compliance might be as high as $59 million. Labs will be permitted to charge each patient  a reasonable fee for each request.

 

Will this apply to all labs including reference labs?

 

Good question. I suspect the reasoning for this question is that patients do not generally have a direct relationship with reference labs. For most reference labs the client is a referring entity like a hospital, physician etc.

 

CMS says the rule should be applied uniformly and applies to all laboratories. Their goal is to make it easier to access results, wherever tests are performed, so reference labs will not be exempt.

 

What about those states that prohibit release of results directly to patients?

 

As I alluded to in my earlier post, this rule supersedes state law restricting the release of results. About 13 states have some specific restriction on releasing results to patients directly. This rule voids that prohibition and labs must now release results to patients regardless of previous prohibition by state law.

 

Doesn’t this place a legal burden on laboratories being asked to explain test results?

 

The requirement is to provide the result to the patient within 30 days of receiving a request from the patient. The mandate is not to interpret the result or to explain the clinical significance to the patient. In many cases, the patient will have already discussed the result with their physician by the time the lab receives a request. Sometimes the patient just needs a valid copy for their records or to seek a second opinion.

 

Physician groups like the American Medical Association have opposed this rule on the basis that patients are not prepared to interpret their result and having free access without a doctor’s help might actually be more harmful than helpful.

 

HHS responded that this is based on the philosophy that the patient owns his or her own results, and the benefits of direct access far outweigh any theoretical risk. HHS also points out that the rule does not diminish the role of the provider in interpreting and explaining lab results to patients. Diagnoses and treatment will still be based on the full picture, not just a few lab results.

 

It is interesting to note that several studies have shown that providers fail to notify patients of abnormal results about 7 percent of the time. Some estimates are even higher.

 

 Direct access to one’s own results is designed to empower the patient, not to burden labs and not to minimize the role of physicians.

2 comments »     

Search

About this Blog

Keep Me Updated