Opinions of non working BB techs supervising and reviewing your work

[Lekota40]

After getting a lot of great input and some bashing about how I should NOT criticize my superiors-which will not do here the opinion I seek is the following:

Should a person NOT actively working the bench be allowed to review and approve a tech's work?

You may have book knowledge but your hand's on experience is not there. I sort of present another scenario would you want a doctor that hasnt operated in 5 years supervising a new surgeon or a person that owns a car repair shop that was a mechanic and reads the latest and greatest but hasnt worked on any new model car in 5 years repair your brand new newest car model?

I feel current 'hands on" knowledge can far exceed "book knowledge".

[RR1]

I think you are totally right about this. If anyone carries out tasks related to the blood bank functions then they require some form of regular trainining to demonstrate competency . if your supervisors are not actively working on the bench, but perform interpretations, then I would have thought they would need to participate in some form of proficiency exercise.

[bennette]

After getting a lot of great input and some bashing about how I should NOT criticize my superiors-which will not do here the opinion I seek is the following:

Should a person NOT actively working the bench be allowed to review and approve a tech's work?

You may have book knowledge but your hand's on experience is not there. I sort of present another scenario would you want a doctor that hasnt operated in 5 years supervising a new surgeon or a person that owns a car repair shop that was a mechanic and reads the latest and greatest but hasnt worked on any new model car in 5 years repair your brand new newest car model?

I feel current 'hands on" knowledge can far exceed "book knowledge".

i think they can review your work if for the past years they have been in your area. Just give them a chance first however if thier opinion deviates then you can quaetion them.

[clmergen]

The manager (and yes I am one) is ultimately responsible for everything that goes on in the department. I may not be actively working the bench but that doesn't mean I am incapable of reviewing work, which I do. I also trouble shoot the equipment and answer technical questions all day long and into the middle of the night. My knowledge is based on years of working the bench, just because I am no longer actively working the bench doesn't negate that experience. ABORh interps and Antibody IDs haven't really changed over the last few decades, only the techniques that we use have. I do CME's and keep current wilth what is out there and I would suspect that your supervisor does also.

You weren't bashed for criticizing your supervisor, you were warned that it could get you in trouble. Plus it just looks unprofessional.

Edited August 17, 2009 by clmergen
Fat fingers caused a type

[tbostock]

Lekota40: "Should a person NOT actively working the bench be allowed to review and approve a tech's work?"

Most regulatory agencies (especially my state DOH) require the review to be by a supervisor or "supervisor qualified" MT. Having current bench work experience or having book knowledge is not the point. It's more about responsibilities that are designated to a supervisor based on education, licensing, etc. Doesn't matter if we think someone "should" or "shouldn't"; the matter has been taken out of our hands.

[John C. Staley]

My response to staff who wanted a "working supervisor" was that if I was working the bench then I would not need them and they would be looking for work! After thinking it over they decided their situation was not so bad.

Having said that, I worked the bench for a number of years before becoming a "non-working" supervisor. Even then I filled in for vacations and completed the same competancies as the rest of the staff. Admittedly I was not as fast or as effecient as I had been but I was no less accurate.

Essentially what I am saying is that I have never met a blood bank supervisor who did not have hands on experience and usually much more than most of their staff. That's why they were the supervisor. Not knowing your situation or supervisor personally, I find your attitude somewhat insulting toward all supervisors who you seem to deem inexperienced and incapable of supervising you.

Granted, not all supervisors are created equal, and again not knowing your circumstances it is impossible for me to make any assessment as to the qualifications of your supervisor but the fact that they are the supervisor, they have the responsibility to make sure every thing that comes out of their department is correct and who ever gave them the job determined they were capable of doing that.

[Lekota40]

My response to Mr. Staley's comment is that I indeed have been a supervisor. I was a "working supervisor" that spent a heck of a lot of extra hours at work to do my supervisor work after the regular. I kept current on every aspect of the lab-not just blood bank. I was actually the evening shift supervisor and had to deal with all the phlebotomy headaches as well. So what I'm getting at is that I feel "insulted" by the fact that I have to be supervised by those I feel dont even try to reach out to what "used" to be their world as a bench tech and give us some semblance of credit, knowledge and appreciation.

[kmh76]

I am a Blood bank Supervisor and have 35 years of Bench Experience. I do help on the bench when I am not writing procedures, doing Inspections, making up Competencies, Reviewing and scheduling all QC including Activations, Calibrations etc... If you would like to change places with me I would be more than happy to sit on the bench and type results into the computer. i am capable of doing ALL Blood bank work on the bench and also all Supervisor work. If it wasn't for us Supervisors you would not only be doing bench work but paper work, making schedules, writing procedures and doing inspections. Think you can handle all that?!!!!!!!! Also do you think you know enough about Blood bank Standards to be reviewing your co-workers work? If so more power to you.

PS Supervisors work more than 40 hours/week and are not entitled to overtime!!!!!!!!

[David Saikin]

I totally agree with John and kmh76 . . . management responsibility does not include bench work. However, in some institutions the "supervisor" is a working tech. Nothing wrong with that, BUT in larger blood banks the division of labor is such that managment does not do "bench work". If I had a tech tell me that I wasn't qualified to "supervise" them because I wasn't on the bench - well there's always jobs a Kmart for those folks (the produce department at Shaw's isn't bad either for those who want to work hand-in-hand with their superiors). The larger the insitution, the greater the division of labor.

Edited August 19, 2009 by David Saikin
poor spelling

[kmh76]

to Lekota 40:

You say you were an afternoon supervisor? Did you review all the techs on afternoon shifts worK. I have a 4-12 supervisor here at this lab and she can't review anything. Doesn't even know how to do a panel in Blood bank. So until you can walk in my shoes( 35 years Blood bank bench experience) 6 years Blood bank Supervisor stop complaining about the Supervisor not having bench experience. Also 4-12 shift Supervisors do all departments of the lab not just 1 section such as Blood bank. Seems to me you need an attitude adjustment!!!!!!!!!!

[David Saikin]

Yeah Verily kmh76! Many time "off-shift" supervisors are there to handle immediate administrative decisions (or at least make the decision to wake up the "big guns"). They are not necessarily proficient in all areas of Clinical Pathology. Anyway, as with everything - there are the good, the bad, and the ugly. Even worse, sometimes they become prime examples of the Peter Principle . . . but that is life, and not just in the Lab.

[RR1]

Lekota40: "Should a person NOT actively working the bench be allowed to review and approve a tech's work?"

If we get back to the question that Lekota40 has asked, and take away the feelings we have about our individual roles, then essentially the answer should be NO. Any member of staff that performs critical tasks in the Blood bank must demonstrate competency ( and have this documented)- regardless of how many years service or level of seniority they have.This is just basic common sense.

We all get 'rusty' over time- especially if we don't routinely do some of these things. In fact, I would suggest you get your staff to set these exercises up for you.Think of it as a challenge, if you pass, that gives them more confidence. If you mess up- then hey... maybe you are a bit rusty, but you will certainly gain more respect from them if you admit this and have a bit of refresher training.

Edited August 21, 2009 by RR1

[clmergen]

I disagree wholeheartedly with you Rashmi.

What does reviewing the results of someone's work have to do with their abiltiy to shake a tube? I review work for completeness and accuracy. If I do this everyday then I am competent on reviewing work. As I stated earlier, an Antibody Identification hasn't really changed much over the years. Rule outs are still based on the same rules. I maintain I am competent whether I am doing the work or not. I know what needs documenting, etc. And since my job is on the line when an error is made, you can bet that I am reviewing the work or only allowing the best in my department to review the work.

[RR1]

Hi clmergen, competencies are not just practical based but interpretive. I have worked with senior staff that have had difficulties in these aspects and needed refresher training.

In the UK everyone involved in transfusion lab tasks has to have documented competency training in key areas. This includes supervisory staff and even Quality and Path IT managers, though this is generally surrounding quality system activities related to the Blood bank.

Like many of you I also specialised in transfusion for 27yrs, nearly 15yrs at blood bank manager level. Currently I also participate on night shifts- so I have to perform proficiency exercises set by my team. One day when I finally no longer need the money- and give up the nights , I would still want to prove to myself and my staff of my continued ability and understanding, regardless whether this was a mandatory requirement or not.

[clmergen]

I feel that I prove myself to my staff and myself everyday when I answer the technical questions posed to me. I don't participate in proficiency or competency exercises anymore but that still doesn't make me not competent. The last 2 managers that I worked for were both non-bench -working supervisors. And I respected (and still respect) their abilities in Blood Banking and I went to them for technical advice and they reviewed my work. And I had no problems with that at all. If a supervisor is having problems with interpretative work then that is a separate issue. if I have a problem with an interpretation, I reference the books or others as would be appropriate. That also doesn't make me less competent.

I think you and the original poster are try to paint all of us non bench-working supervisors with a broad brush. Lekota40 does not agree with her supervisor's review of her work. That doesn't make all non-bench-working supervisor's incompetent to review work. It may not even make Lekota40's supervisor incompetent. It just means that Lekota40 feels that her supervisor is not competent to review her work. I refuse to be lumped into the same group because I don't work the bench anymore.

Edited August 21, 2009 by clmergen
advise vs advice - hope I got it right

[RR1]

Performing competency exercises is not about trying to prove someone is incompetent, but to evidence that they are still perfectly able to perform tasks which they carry out . As I previously said, this is a mandatory requirements in the UK for all grades of staff, we don't have a choice about this.

I do understand what you and others are saying, and yes, I still groan about having to perform these too when it's my turn- but that's life! - it's not really a big deal to perform a few proficiency exercises a year. If you only perform interpretations and no benchwork, then an interpretive competency exercise could be done instead- you could ask the techs that you supervise to make up some panels for you, no doubt they will try their hardest to make these difficult!

As a manager ,what is really useful about doing a bit of annual bench training is that you get to see how well the systems in place are working , and whether further, leaner improvements could be made to help your staff.

I am convinced if Lekota40 and others that have complained about their supervisors actually saw them take their turn with annual training, they may show a little more respect to them, and these conflict situations would be less likely to happen. Staff need to know that the people who lead them do actually know what is going on in the practical side of running the lab.

A few weeks ago I had a really fun day running the routine crossmatching bench, I proved I could actually keep up with the workload, and it also highlighted some layout problems. It was lovely working with the team, and they kept having to correct me with some aspects!!! Unfortunately this delayed some of my paperwork- but I gained far more from having spent the time in the lab.

Edited August 22, 2009 by RR1
forgot something

[Likewine99]

Lekota40, if you are unhappy in your current position you can fire your manager. This can be accomplished by moving on to another job at another blood bank.

Re: a person not working a bench reviewing work, John has summed it up in a nut shell. If you are concerned about your current supervisor's ability to reviwew your work I would suggest you talk directly to him/her.

Prior to the coversation you should have a minimum of 3 concrete examples where you feel your supervisor is in error or has reveiwed your work incorrectly.

Supervisors are criticized all the time, welcome to my world!!! Remember, we are human too and can make mistakes just like plain old bench techs. Everyone in your BB needs to work together as a team and do your very best to deliver the best possible result for your patients.

Working as a team includes everyone at all levels of experience, from those techs with hands on expereince, and those techs with book smarts, and those lucky individuals who have both.