In my previous entry I mentioned my mini-survey on Linked
in about issues the group of laboratory professionals considered as
“burning”. The following is one of the
responses:
“Continuing
education on the topics of Lean/Process Improvement and Effective Management/Leadership.
Med techs receive no training in these two important areas during their college
courses, and this causes many laboratories to be less efficient and more
dysfunctional than they need to be. Better management + improved processes = laboratories
that are superb in every way!”
Since the survey was designed to be anonymous, I know
nothing about the writer of the comment, other than the person is a laboratory
professional that connects to Linked in.
While they might know of me, there is no purpose or advantage for them to be stroking my ego. I therefore take the
comment at face value. That being said, I
am very supportive of the sentiment being expressed.
Education providers are an interesting group. On the one side, their personal interest
side, educators tend to be a group prone to being progressive and promotional. As a general rule, if you want to know what
is current thought, talk to a teacher.
On the other side, the teaching professional side, they tend to be dreadful
stick-in-the-muds. When it comes to the
content of their teaching, the rule of thumb is “change nothing”. The process to change curriculum in many
(most) universities and colleges is made difficult beyond
difficult. There are departmental
committees, faculty committees, senate committees. Everyone needs to have the opportunity to
discuss and debate forever.
When it comes to Quality, with the exception of business
schools and Engineering, you might think that the concepts were never
developed. (Most Business school
curricula will have a course which includes Frederick Winslow Taylor, Water
Shewhart, and William Edwards Deming, and most Engineering schools will have
curricula on ISO 9000.)
But in Medical Laboratory Technologist programs, there
has been essentially little progress beyond Levey and Jenning, with perhaps the
inclusion of the rules of James Westgard, which essentially are all about how
to use and interpret Levey-Jenning charts.
Quality in these programs means Quality Control. Period.
End Stop.
That also is true when it comes to training programs for
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Residency programs. And in my experience the same is true in
medical science oriented graduate studies programs.
So we continue to have laboratorians with absence of understanding of critical issues like how to reduce error, how to evaluate risk, how to reduce poor quality costs, and how to implement effective change. As a colleague said today, their working strategy for change and improvement is IDEA - SHOOT - AIM!
There are programs that fill the void, mainly on a
Continuing Education level. For example
there are courses available through the American Society for Quality, and
Clinical Laboratory Manager Association (CLMA) and the Michener Institute
(Toronto) and of course, my course The Certificate Course in Laboratory Quality
Management through the University of British Columbia (see www.POLQM.ca).
And I am sure there are lots others, but they all have the same common
characteristics; they are voluntary and they are provided as post-graduate
continuing education.
One can wonder why this programmatic void exists. In my opinion it is a mix of disinterest, absence
of imagination and visioning, and above all, inertia, all the hallmarks of
stagnation. And that is just sad.
And so to the anonymous responder to the survey. Congratulations for speaking up here. Now, take that same idea forward to your
laboratory and organization and college or university. Take it forward with constructive outrage.
Demand change.
And in the meantime, contact me at www.POLQM.ca
PS: I have had a few more responses to my survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BurningIssuesB). The ranking of burning issues remains the same, with stronger values. Feel free to participate over the next few days.
Nice Blog....
ReplyDeletelooking for the convenience of online health care training or the interaction of a traditional classroom facility?
ReplyDeleteCan any one suggest few?"
I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts and time into the stuff you post. You had good coverage of topics.
ReplyDeleteSurvey Software