Re: Performance indicators.
I really don't like putting time expectations on things like this with
out foreknowledge of specifics. 100 OB/GYN blocks would take a hell of a lot
longer than 100 prostate biopsies. Embedding 100 "prostate chips" blocks
would take a lot longer than 100 breasts. If all the blocks were EXACTLY the
same size and EXACTLY the same type of tissue, with EXACTLY the same amount
of fatty tissue, perhaps you could justify a quota.
Then there is the whole quality of work factor. We used to race to see
who could coverslip the most slides per minute. It was interesting to note
that usually the fastest worker often had the most bubbles after a half
hour. The same could be said of wrinkles in sections. The slowest was,
admittedly, not the best, but the ideal was obviously not time dependent.
Putting expectations on the time it takes to complete these tasks is is
really subjective and inherently flawed. The only way to ensure that people
are really working to their potential is to sit and work next to them and
keep chattering and goofing off to a minimum. Rather than saying "You're the
slowest tech here" one should look at the worker and try to teach some time
Put the stopwatch down and step away from the whipped tech.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clarke Ian"
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 12:54 PM
Subject: Performance indicators.
> I am interested in trying to assess a performance level for some of the
> standard procedures in a Histology and Cytology laboratory.These include ,
> embedding,trimming,cutting and mounting of slides.I thus would like to
> survey what other people think is realistic and doing in practise.
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>