RE: Competence Testing
|From:||"Morken, Tim" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
<My only concern is that the only benefit of doing competency in the first
place is to make sure that your staff is competent to do YOUR work and
perhaps it is better to design
something to YOUR laboratory.>
You are right.
One thing that Daniel Haun (I mentioned his competency testing talk in the
email John refers to) was that most mistakes come from not following
procedures (or not having good written procedures in the first place). Not
following procedures comes from trying to cut corners due to pressure to get
the work out. He confronted his superiors with the idea that they were to
blame for many mistakes since they pushed for more work from fewer people.
When he was able to document that fewer people led to more mistakes he was
able to justify more positions.
Another thing he mentioned was that most labs try to get away with direct
observation. The problem is, that his studies show that techs will do what
their supervisor does, and if the supervisor is wrong, the techs will be
wrong (and if the supervisor is wrong, how does he catch the tech being
wrong?). Pathlogists are also caught being wrong sometimes (GASP! Heresy!).
He advocates written tests developed out of real-life mistakes. He has
intern students go around to section supervisors and find out what bone-head
mistakes have been made and then writes up questions from those.
I gave Daniel's name to NSH. They are meeting this week to finalize the
program so maybe he will be on it.
Tim Morken, BA, EMT(MSA), HTL(ASCP)
Infectious Disease Pathology Activity
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30333
From: John Spair [mailto:John.Spair@multicare.org]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 12:29 AM
To: 'HistoNet Server'
Subject: Competenc Testing
Someone asked about how some of us were handling competency testing in
histology. I recently spent the time writing up a yearly competency testing
procedure, which will consist of a written exam, visual observation, and
analsis of quality and quanity of work produced by each tech. This way I
can set a standard for quantity anyhow that may be more tailored to each
tech than become a norm for the whole laboratory. Much like it is done with
the cytotechs and the amount of slides they read.
I do understand however, not sure where I read it, that NSH is coming out
with a competency program that you buy yearly and pay so much for each tech
and their competency is then measured by this standard and it takes the
chore away from the laboratory to do this. My only concern is that the only
benefit of doing competency in the first place is to make sure that your
staff is compentent to do YOUR work and perhaps it is better to design
something to YOUR laboratory. Thanks.
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>