RE: [Histonet] RE: QIHC change

From:"James Watson"

Histonetters interested in QIHC exam,

After several phone calls I was finally put into contact with someone at
ASCP that handles the QIHC questions.  Her question to me was how recent
my experience with immunophenotyping on humans was and what I might be
doing now that would qualify as immunophenotyping.  She was not able to
tell me what would specifically be considered as immunophenotyping and
did not say that some types of work on animals would or would not be
considered immunophenotyping such as B and T cell markers.  She said
that they try to be flexible about this.

She told me that this weekend the committee is meeting about the QIHC
exam, so if you have concerns about the exam or qualifications you may
want to e-mail Pam Frommelt from ASCP at .

James Watson HT, ASCP
Facilities Manager of Histology
GNF, Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation
Room C015

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Pamela
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:36 AM
To: Morken, Tim - Labvision; Morken, Tim - Labvision;
Subject: RE: [Histonet] RE: QIHC change


I understand the point exactly however, ASCP has also never failed in
thirty years to take my money for registration yearly.  Many of the 
pathologists I have worked with over the years in research, clinical and

industry have insisted on ASCP registration for research and clinical as

part of the qualifications for application to a job.  They were and are 
clinical pathologist and members of ASCP who should have then been aware
research and industry it should not matter whether I or anyone else was 
certified by the group.  I have worked for several universities since
'70s all wanted the registration in HT and later some wanted HTL if you
no undergraduate or graduate degree.  I have both so that was not my 
issue.   ASCP does not discourage anyone from taking the test and if it
only for diagnostics they are the ones who are not adhering to the code
those of us who wish to be as well qualified as possible for any area of


By the way I agree with Barry wholeheartedly.


At 02:04 PM 11/16/2005, Morken, Tim - Labvision wrote:
>I'm not discounting the knowledge researchers have. I just don't think 
>the ASCP certification route  fits research. I pointed out that the 
>ASCP, by definition,  is intended soley for clinical diagnostic labs. 
>It is not the ASCP's fault that the research institutions are mis-using

>the ASCP certification for their own in-house qualification standards. 
>Certainly  it would help researchers if there was a more general  
>certification, but is it the ASCP's place to do that? I don't know. The

>ASCP  is an organization of Clinical Pathology based in human 
>diagnostics. Because of that the HT, HTL and QIHC are all based on 
>human clinical pathology diagnostic work.  I'm not sure the ASCP would 
>be interested in setting up a whole new testing procedure for research.

>What if a person only does work in ferrets, or fish, or snakes? Who 
>looks at tests based on that work? There are many similarities in 
>procedures, and I'm confident a generalized test could be designed. It 
>simply a question of whether the ASCP is the organization to do that.  
>I guess the research techs have to explore this with ASCP. But I don' 
>think you should blame ASCP for not accomodating research institutions 
>when that is not what they are concerned with. Remember, there are no 
>regulatory requirements at all covering the work  of research lab techs

>but there are regulations covering who can do certain work in the 
>diagnostic lab.  ASCP, again by definition,  is only concerned with the

>diagnostic side. It has nothing to do with whether one is "better" than

>another. There is no "better" in this work, only differences in the 
>work done. I also suggest that you lobby your institution and show them

>how the ASCP certification may not be fully applicable to what you do.
>Tim Morken
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pamela Marcum []
>Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:56 AM
>To: Morken, Tim - Labvision;
>Subject: RE: [Histonet] RE: QIHC change
>Hi Tim and Jamie,
>I know Jamie and have for many years and you are right anyone would be 
>happy to hire him for his experience in clinical or his current 
>research position.  However, it is also true that now research 
>positions are often asking for at least an HT or even HTL (ASCP) to 
>fill position with histology as the main focus.  Yet we are given a set

>of criteria for tissue that often excludes animal research applicants 
>from completing the practical easily.  I took my HT many years ago and 
>I was told that even in a research position (and I had a BS at the 
>time) it would improve my salary and increase me to higher level in the

>university if I got my HT.  I was told not to use animal tissue (1976) 
>as no one reading the exam could properly read them.  Now we have 
>veterinary person there and tissue requirements can still eliminate 
>some people or make it almost impossible to complete the practical with

>out help in procurement.  Why should that happen to some one attempting

>to improve their position within the histology community?
>My real problem with what you said about the QIHC is that I would also 
>like to take it and can not qualify either.  Yet those of us in 
>research are often finding the very antibodies and test methods 
>companies and diagnostics later fight to get or learn.  We are exempt 
>in your mind and ASCP's even though research is what you depend on 
>often for advances.  I have never and will never understand this logic 
>and exempt status for those of us  who chose not to be clinical.  We 
>are still often required to have or get ASCP status as a way to advance

>and prove we know our field.  ASCP needs to get up to date on the 
>fields it is registering or make new categories for those of still 
>contribute to clinical advances every year.
>Sorry if sounds like I am picking on you Tim.   I just don't see how we
>required to be registered on one hand for acceptance (even NSH likes to

>it) and discounted on the other.
>Pam Marcum
>UPENN Vet School
>New Bolton Center
>Kennett Square, PA 19384
>At 12:07 PM 11/16/2005, Morken, Tim - Labvision wrote:
> >Jamie, It seems from what you say that you are working in a research 
> >lab. Is that correct? My understanding about the ASCP certification 
> >is that it is aimed at providing a modicum of proof that a person is 
> >qualified to work in a medical diagnostic lab. Research labs are not 
> >considered diagnostic labs. As you imply, a person in a research lab 
> >will often work on only a limited sample set. Therefore, it is 
> >meaningless to apply the the ASCP standard to research people.
> >
> >  If you are planning to move into the diagnostic field, then I'll 
> >bet you could easily find a job in a diagnostic lab, get the 
> >experience, and qualify to take the test. It may be that some 
> >diagnostic labs have a suggested requirement to be ASCP certified as 
> >a QIHC, but the vast majority would be happy to find someone with the

> >experience you outline, even if they had not previously worked in a 
> >diagnositc lab.
> >
> >Tim Morken
> >Lab Vision - Neomarkers
> >
> >
> >Free webhosting for US State Histotechnology Societies: 
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From:
> >[] On Behalf Of James

> >Watson
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7:28 AM
> >To:;
> >Subject: RE: [Histonet] RE: QIHC change
> >
> >
> >This is my point.  With the requirements listed below someone with 25

> >years of experience doing immuno (single, double, triple antibody 
> >staining, making own antibodies, and in situ Hybridization: all with 
> >and without using kits, all with and without using an automated
> >stainer) is not qualified for this certification if they work in a 
> >research facility where immunophenotyping is not done. There is no 
> >system of doing it on your own to prove that you have the capability 
> >to do immunophenotyping in order to fullfil this requirement. I guess

> >it is time to start harrassing ASCP about the unfairness of this 
> >system.
> >
> > >From almost always sunny San Diego
> >Jamie
> >
> >         -----Original Message-----
> >         From: on behalf of

> >
> >         Sent: Wed 11/16/2005 5:55 AM
> >         To:
> >         Cc:
> >         Subject: [Histonet] RE: QIHC change
> >
> >
> >
> >         James, to qualify for the qualification you take the 50 
> >question test
> >         and submit an employer reference form + of course satisfy 
> >one of
> >         three routes.  There is no practical to submit anymore.  I 
> >think that is
> >         what you are asking.  It seems to me that it wouldn't matter
> >         specificity antigens/markers or what diseases or human 
> >cells. There is
> >         no requirement other than what is requested on the employer 
> >reference
> >         form which you can't see the details until you order and 
> >receive your
> >         packet. Is it possible for anyone to post a copy of the
> >         reference form.  From the ASCP website this is what it says 
> >"
> >
> >         Qualification in Immunohistochemistry
> >         Experience requirements
> >
> >         Applicants must have experience in the following areas
> >
> >             * Immunohistochemical and Immunofluorescence Preparation
> >               All of the following should have been performed by the

> >applicant
> >                   o staining technique
> >                   o selection of proper control material
> >                   o titration of immunologic reagents
> >
> >             * Immunophenotyping
> >               in at least one of the following applications
> >                   o immunodeficiencies
> >                   o immunoproliferative disorders (neoplastic and 
> >non-neoplastic
> >         disorders)
> >                   o transplantation biopsies
> >                   o other immunophenotyping applications
> >                     please specify: ______________________
> >
> >             * Quality Assurance
> >               The applicant should have participated in Quality
> >         related to all of the following
> >                   o specimen fixation, processing, microtomy
> >                   o reagent selection, preparation, storage,
> >                   o method selection, validation, documentation
> >                   o quality control
> >                   o safety
> >
> >         "  This is the experience which I am assuming is only 
> >documented for the
> >         ASCP through the employer reference form, hence if you only 
> >do A and C
> >         and not B you can't qualify unless your employer is 
> >dishonest on
> >         form. Because even if you crosstrain into what I assume is
> >         cytometry but don't actually work it day to day as part of 
> >your job you
> >         do not qualify because you have not had experience doing it
for a
> >         minimun of 12 months.  As for research, same thing if you do

> >all of it
> >         every day then your good to go.  If not it is a grey or is 
> >it gray area
> >         that I'm looking more information/details on.  In the past
> >         qualified your work with different immuno stains as a 
> >practical ,
> >         don't remember there being a flow requirement.  Maybe I'm 
> > wrong
> >         anyone have this info I'm looking for.
> >
> >         G Hurlburt HT(ASCP)
> >         sunny and warm NC
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         Histonet mailing list
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Histonet mailing list

Histonet mailing list

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>