Sometimes it is worthwhile
to look back at what you have been toiling with to see if you are staying on or
near the path that you envisioned, or if the forces of either stagnation or
innovation have taken you off into another place. This is a good time for me to make that look
back.
A long time ago, I had the
opportunity to get involved in the world of Quality for medical
laboratories. To be truthful, it was not
my idea, but rather that of my mentor, John Angus Smith, but I take credit for
recognizing an opportunity when it came along and taking to places that John, I
don’t think envisioned.
The primary model was to
create a local proficiency testing program for local laboratories because of
total frustration with the choices, especially those from out-of-country that
were available at the time. By housing
the program inside the university it gave him access available space and to
physicians in specialty training (residents) who could help with writing the
educational critiques.
When I took over the
program, identified as Clinical Microbiology Proficiency Testing (CMPT) as it
still is, I quickly realized that being “inside the walls” of the university
provided more than space and slaves, but also create an environment for
research and development and education in a topic that was essentially beyond
the scope and vision of most academics.
Over time the theme of university
based proficiency testing expanded from solely providing local community
service in medical laboratory quality assessment to national coverage and then
to international. The technical focus
certainly expanded through aggressive research and development into innovative
approaches to simulated samples in both clinical and water samples. Perhaps more importantly, and consistent with
our education foundation was the generation of better educational critiques and
photographs and treatises and manuscripts, the impact of which has been greatly
expanded through electronic access.
The next phase of theme
development was the topic of my last entry [see: http://www.medicallaboratoryquality.com/2014/04/fishing-and-proficiency-testing.html
] where it became relevant to share our knowledge, not though manuscript but
through hands-on real-time training, with the people and countries that would
benefit by establishing their own independent programs that could network with
us, or not, depending on their own needs and requirements. Several have seen value, and have returned
for more time with us, others have chosen to work though co-venture
studies.
The next step was probably
our most adventurous, when we developed our sister program the UBC Program
Office for Laboratory Quality Management (POLQM) because it expanded our them
from strictly laboratory technical to laboratory management, and opened up a
whole new set of opportunities including study of basic knowledge of laboratory
quality management, provision of community services in quality management and
education, and participation in the national and beyond dialogue in the themes
critical to patient safety through better laboratories.
One does not have to look
very far to see how much information most laboratorians don’t have in the domain
of quality to understand how much enthusiasm there has been in with POLQM
participants and at the same time how much push back there has been from some
laboratorian luddites. But in the
meantime we have still been able to develop a form of graduate program (PhD)
and a visiting scientist program.
Over the past two months we
have had the opportunity to work with a visiting scientist from China, a senior
laboratory director, with an interest and passion in learning more about
laboratory quality and laboratory safety.
It has been a real pleasure and a huge success in having him here. During his short visit, we have participated
in a national Quality Seminar, participated in a number of Laboratory Safety
Audits, Created an international (three continent) on-line survey on the
Quality aspects of blood culturing, and developed a manuscript soon ready for
submission on barriers to success in laboratory improvements.
So as I stand back today and
remember where we started and how we have progressed, I feel pretty pleased with
where we are. Where we could have been
complacent we have been activist; where we could have been staid we have been innovative. And where we have met roadblocks we have
created go-arounds. I think my mentor
would have been pleased.
PS: Anyone interested in hearing more about the visiting
scientist program is welcome to contact.
