Recruitment Tool Kit

Summit on the Shortage of Clinical Laboratory Personnel

SUMMIT II

DATA COLLECTION

It would seem self-evident that the collection of data would facilitate the factual basis of knowing that there is or is not a shortage of clinical laboratory professionals or indeed of those practitioners in any field. And while there is a federal government agency (HRSA) that deals with factual knowledge of various segments of the U.S. work force, it is nonetheless incumbent upon a practice field to know as much about itself as possible. Our thoughts here suggest that a greater degree of cooperation among the various professional groups in our field might advantage all of us in understanding more about ourselves and therefore participating more fully with federal agencies in the sustained and orderly development of our practice field.

Context: There are alleged growing shortages in several health-related disciplines, e.g., nursing, pharmacy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, etc. Clinical laboratory personnel shortages will need to be addressed in competition with several other disciplines. (Need more reliable and current information).

Complicated Multiple Data Sources: There are several organizations and entities which certify a range of laboratory personnel (ASCP, ASM, NCA). NAACLS accredits the training programs. (Professional / Government / Regulatory).

Barriers: There are no mandatory recertification and few re-licensure requirements. This poses problems with tracking over time. There are only 11 states requiring licensure of clinical laboratory personnel.

Tools we have: ASCP Wage and Vacancy Survey (2 years)

10 positions

MT/CLS (baccalaureate)
- supervisor, manager, staff
MLT/CLT
- generalist (associates degree)
Cytotechnologist (baccalaureate)
- Staff, supervisor
Histotechnologist (baccalaureate)
Histologic Tech. (associates degree)
- Histotech supervisor, staff
Phlebotomist

May need to add:

Medical informatics
Molecular diagnostic (cytogenetics)
Others
The United States Department of Health and Human Services gathers information for its own purposes about our practice field by looking at collected and accumulated data from state agencies that are responsible for clinical laboratory professional licensure within those jurisdictions. Perhaps an organized review (periodically) might be valuable for us to determine a more clear view of what we all look like in the fifty states. And, even if it didn’t, perhaps a systematic review of this information might suggest more about us than we already know. In any event, it is quite likely that the true nature of our practice field is "soft" in its clarity in the non-licensed states.
No matter how information is addressed one professional organization at a time we might all benefit from some consensus in terminology of how to measure and what to measure as this kind of clinical laboratory professional vs. that kind. It is suggested that we make an effort at a consensus of terminology.
There are couple of vehicles for data collection that might be augmented by each professional organization’s efforts in surveys that they might conduct broadly across licensed and non-licensed states that perhaps could take advantage of information that exists in the licensed states and perhaps some consideration of the formats used by data collection agencies in the licensed might be useful in modifying the existing national survey tools such as the ASCP Wage and Vacancy Survey and the MLO Salary Survey that would bring greater cohesiveness to our collective information about ourselves. It was suggested that the vacancy rate %, absolute numbers and other parameters (professionals not working, impact of existing or anticipated vacancies) be considered vs. other professions.
Yet another way to modify the existing and future data collection in our field might be the information base now extant through the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) which has demographic data on salaries and education broadly for a variety of purposes.
Whatever data is collected should perhaps consider in addition some estimate of the cost of clinical programs (this would suggest a new data collection effort by one or more of our organizations) and the systematic review and evaluation of data collected by all of us as well as some systematic survey or survey consolidation over a five or ten year period that would comprehensively include vacancies, salaries, licensure, internal consulting and other factors that would indicate size, depth and mobility of our colleagues as they move through their professional lives.
It may also be of value to collect information related to career development programs. We are all well appraised of the efforts by our various organizations to advance the careers of our individual members, and it would not be a surprise to learn that each of our programs or some combinations thereof actually have an impact on the career choices over time of many tens of thousands of clinical laboratory professionals. This information perhaps could be collected in some systematic way by all of us. Certification agencies in our field are required by legal prudence to be aware of what clinical laboratory professionals do, what their activities are like on a daily basis and how they move into and adapt to new situations, new technology and evolving practices. Perhaps these parameters routinely used by our certification agencies could be the basis of a different kind of data collection than any of us are now participating in.
We should evaluate all known tools (JCAHO sentinel event, Focus Groups, Medical Device Reporting) for estimating the impact of vacancies.