RE: Performance indicators.
I have read this thread with interest. I once worked at a lab where there
were "timed performance indicators." We wrote down the time we started a
task, the time we finished and how many were done. (embedding, sectioning
and coverslipping) I HATED working there.
I felt like I was in a factory. Even though I met the time indicators, I
did not work there long. I did not feel like a health professional, I felt
like a robot.
Just my thoughts.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Connie McManus [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 11:55 AM
> To: Jennifer MacDonald; Connie McManus; Amos Brooks; Clarke Ian;
> Subject: Re: Performance indicators.
> At 04:28 PM 11/15/01 -0800, Jennifer MacDonald wrote:
> >While a relaxed atmosphere is nicer to work in this is not always a
> >Many employees will take advantage of the situation. Having worked in
> >management I can tell you that there are employees that need guidelines
> I completely agree with you here. However... [read on]..
> >CAP has requirements for turn-around-time and patients have
> >expectations of prompt results. In a clinical setting without
> >guidelines this is difficult to manage.
> Yep, I agree that there needs to be SOME amount of stress placed on the
> people in the workplace... heck NOTHING would ever get done if it was
> totally relaxed. But neither can there be this feeling of being pushed
> the time, of being placed under the microscope. BALANCE is the key
> balance between the relaxed environment and the productivity fiends.
> Anything that dehumanizes human beings is wrong, plain and simple. Bean
> counters are great with figuring out how to balance a check book or a cost
> analysis scheme, but when it comes to productivity, it appears they
> a clue that money and machines are NOT the model by which human beings
> should be measured. Frankly, I think the bean counters need to get a
> hobby. It seems THEY have too much time on their hands if they are so
> concerned about something like this.
> Roxanne Soto said it well...
> >Can they cut, embed, file, coverslip, stain, and handle the stress? Can
> they read and follow a >protocol? Do they ask questions if they need
> Can they do any of these items without >excessive complaining? Then they
> are probably OK.
> Now, isn't that the bottom line for what is trying to be accomplished?
> cares how much time it takes to do the several little tasks that a tech
> does in a day? If the work is done in a timely manner and is done
> correctly that's all that should matter.
> 'nuff said.
> Connie McManus
> Thought for the day: "who are THEY and why are THEY always the ones in
> Guidelines are not quotas but
> >expections of what should be accomplished. Will everybody meet these
> >everyday, probably not. There are always things that can go wrong, but
> >it be accomplished most days? I had an employee who saw nothing wrong
> >taking 6 hours to embed 100 blocks. Guidelines were necessary.
> >Jennifer MacDonald
> >> I think somebody needs to be clued in that the most productive work
> >> environment is the relaxed and happy environment. Stressed out
> >> regardless of the type of work they're doing, are not as productive as
> >> happy, stress-free workers. So, if people are being timed to see how
> >> they can produce in a given period of time, that is putting stress on
> >> worker. If the worker feels they must produce x amount in y time
> >> that is even more stressful. Worse, it's demeaning. It's putting
> >> beings on par with machinery. Machines can be made to perform like
> >> but people just DON'T.
> >> This really has to be the child of the bean counter from Hell.
> >> just yakkin
> >> Connie McManus
> >> At 03:46 PM 11/15/01 -0500, Amos Brooks wrote:
> >> >Hi,
> >> > I really don't like putting time expectations on things like this
> >> >out foreknowledge of specifics. 100 OB/GYN blocks would take a hell of
> >> >longer than 100 prostate biopsies. Embedding 100 "prostate chips"
> >> >would take a lot longer than 100 breasts. If all the blocks were
> >> >same size and EXACTLY the same type of tissue, with EXACTLY the same
> >> >of fatty tissue, perhaps you could justify a quota.
> >> > Then there is the whole quality of work factor. We used to race to
> >> >who could coverslip the most slides per minute. It was interesting to
> >> >that usually the fastest worker often had the most bubbles after a
> >> >hour. The same could be said of wrinkles in sections. The slowest was,
> >> >admittedly, not the best, but the ideal was obviously not time
> >> > Putting expectations on the time it takes to complete these tasks
> >> >really subjective and inherently flawed. The only way to ensure that
> >> >are really working to their potential is to sit and work next to them
> >> >keep chattering and goofing off to a minimum. Rather than saying
> >> >slowest tech here" one should look at the worker and try to teach some
> >> >saving methods.
> >> >Put the stopwatch down and step away from the whipped tech.
> >> >Amos Brooks
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: "Clarke Ian"
> >> >To: "histonet"
> >> >Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 12:54 PM
> >> >Subject: Performance indicators.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> I am interested in trying to assess a performance level for some of
> >> >> standard procedures in a Histology and Cytology laboratory.These
> >include ,
> >> >> embedding,trimming,cutting and mounting of slides.I thus would like
> >> >> survey what other people think is realistic and doing in practise.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Veterinary Diagnostics Lab
> >> Utah State University
> >> Logan, UT
> >> USA
> >> (435) 797-1891
> >> fax (435) 797-2805
> Veterinary Diagnostics Lab
> Utah State University
> Logan, UT
> (435) 797-1891
> fax (435) 797-2805
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>