more comments from my corner

<< Previous Message | Next Message >> (by way of histonet)
Date:Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:47:06 -0500
Content-Type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

   Okay folks...histotechs are in demand, we are well aware of this. OJT vs.
formal education? I came from an accredited program, and the tech that
influenced me most (in immuno and special stains) happened to be OJT'ed many
years before. Best tech I ever worked with, in fact.
   Today, I work with a tech that has been "registry eligible" for more years
than I have been in this field (7 years). Recently she took a punch biopsy to
the pathologist (that she had embedded flat, and cut away the epithelial
surface).  Her "excuse" was she didn't know what it was and no one had ever
taught her how to embed a punch biopsy. This particular biopsy was 3mm in
diameter. Okay so she may be embarrassed to ask for help from a "rookie" tech
like me...but there are also techs in the lab with 20 and 30 years in the
field, but new to this lab that she could have asked.
   What I am getting at is simply this... it isn't the fact that a person
"IS" OJT'ed...but "HOW" they are OJT'ed and "WHO" is training them. Maybe
that could be an agenda item for the HOD. A simple solution could be: a.
competency testing (for person(s) training techs in the lab). b. quarterly
evaluation of  trainee's progress. c. limit the time that a person can work
as "registry eligible" (Florida is on the right track in that area). We all
know that there are those coming into the field that just aren't going to do
well, and regulations would help in that respect.
  Come on people, I had a punch biopsy over a year ago...what if that had
been mine? or yours?

okay, back in my corner now,

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>