RE: Performance indicators.
I agree - but there often is one misconception. Slower doesn't necessarily
mean better quailty is produced - and all the techs I have - regardless of
speed - produce excellent work. Our recuts requested are extremely low. I
just wanted to give my input as to what has worked for us. The work is
distributed in a fair manner and I am very proud of the work produced by
this lab. As an aside - all of the people here work great together, are
good friends, and have a great time the 8 hours we spend here a day. The
production expected is not a stress factor.
>From: Bruce Gapinski
>To: 'Louri Caldwell'
>Subject: RE: Performance indicators.
>Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 07:29:35 -0600
>With all due respect, two things come to mind. 1) Maybe you could teach the
>slow HT how to save (not waste) time. The speedy HT could have some input.
>2) Speed is only a temporary time saver if you need to go back and make
>recuts. I'll take a quality slide over 12 sloppy slides any time. Very
>speedy techs are known to cut through a needle biopsy. All the time saved
>will not bring it back. I worry for the patient, after all isn't that what
>this is all about?
>I'm sure you lab does quality work too.
>Bruce Gapinski HT(ASCP)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louri Caldwell [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 4:48 AM
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Performance indicators.
> While I agree that it isn't a good idea to "stopwatch" your
> guidelines are necessary to maintain a level of fairness in
>the lab. If not
> - what do you do if you have one tech who takes 2 hours to
>cut 100 blocks vs
> one who takes 6 hours for the same amount? Then - what do
>you do with the
> tech that's finished 4 hours earlier? Is it fair to make
>them complete more
> tasks just because they're faster?
> Is it fair to expect that much less from the other tech just
> Here, I think we've achieved a good balance. All of the
>work is divided
> evenly - at such a level that each tech should comfortably
>be able to
> complete their workload without any undue stress. Those that
>work too fast
> have learned to slow down to improve quality - and those
> previously too slow have learned time-saving techniques to
> While we don't time workload here on an hourly basis (we
>expect a certain
> level of work completed at the end of each day), on average
> level expected in this lab is as follows. Mind you, this is
>with a wide
> variety of specimen types,sizes, fixation levels - from
> well-fixed biopsy specimens to huge unfixed nightmare
> Embed 100 blocks: 1 hour
> Trim 50 blocks: 30 to 45 minutes
> Cut 30 blocks: 30 to 45 minutes
> File 100 histology slides: if in order - 1/2 hour if not - 1
> Pap smears - we don't do here :)
> Hope this helps.
> Louri Caldwell
> College of Veterinary Medicine
> University of Georgia
> Athens, Georgia 30602
> >From: Clarke Ian
> >To: histonet
> >Subject: Performance indicators.
> >Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:54:04 +0000
> >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
> >How long to:
> >Embed 100 blocks
> >Trim 50 blocks
> >Cut 30 blocks
> >Mount 60 PAP smears
> >Mount 60 Histology slides
> >File 100 Pap Smears
> >and File 100 Histology slides.
> >I will post the results afterwards.
> >Ian Clarke
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>