future of BMS in Transfusion?

[justme]

what do you think is the future of BMS in Transfusion?

[Eagle Eye]

I am sorry but can you please tell us , what is BMS?

[justme]

It stands for Biomedical Scientist.

[Malcolm Needs ☆]

A BMS is a Biomedical Scientist; a legally protected title for a Medical Laboratory Technician used within the UK.

At present, Biomedical Scientists are, without doubt, under attack within Blood Transfusion within the UK. To a certain extent, this is our own fault. For years, other disciplines within Pathology were introducing automation, but no such automation was "available" for Blood Transfusion, because of the mistaken belief that clotted, rather than EDTA samples were required, so that complement-activating antibodies could be detected.

With the advent of monoclonal antibodies, including, crucially, monoclonal anti-human globulin, it was realised that complement-activating antibodies could, with rare exceptions, be detected by an anti-IgG monospecific reagent, allowing the use of EDTA blood samples and, as a result, automation.

This meant that the Blood Transfusion Laboratories were suddenly "over-staffed" with expensive Biomedical Scientists, who could be replaced with less expensive MedicalLaboratory Assistants or Health Technical Officers, who could perform tasks such as loading samples onto the automation, with a Biomedical Scientist available to interpret results that were not interpreted by the automation.

The Agenda for Change should have ensured that the Biomedical Scientists who have the ability to interpret serological difficult cases were protected and paid a reasonable salary, but the Boards of hospitals are taking it upon themselves to replace all but a very few of these with MLAs or HTOs (or, possibly, Higher Health Technical Officers, HHTOs).

They have brought in Management Assessors from outside the profession and the Biomedical Scientists are being down-graded and made redundant.

However, it is my opinion, any purely my opinion, that this is going far to far the other way. Whereas, without doubt, there were too many Biomedical Scientists employed when automation was introduced, they are now going far to far the other way.

The number of Biomedical Scientists employed within the correct salary scale in hospital blood banks, and who are able to interpret "difficult" results, is now getting dangerously low, and those who are employed at a lower pat scale will leave. Mistakes WILL occur, and when Trusts are sued, as is inevitable, the number of properly trained staff within blood transfusion will be examined in court - and I think that the hospitals will lose.

Unless the managers realise this, within a very short time span, there will be huge implications within the EU Courts, let alone other areas of the Law.

I think, therefore, that, although the BMSs in Blood Transfusion are, at present, under "nuclear" attack, it will only be a short time before the MHRA steps in, and the short-sightedness of those involved will be obvious to all, and the correct balance between BMS and MLa (HTO/HHTO) staff will be re-established.

There goes my knighthood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[justme]

As I was reading all about Modernisation of Pathology so I thought that more senior people has some ideas. It is very useful to join the pathlabtalk.

Many thanks,

Justme

A BMS is a Biomedical Scientist; a legally protected title for a Medical Laboratory Technician used within the UK.

At present, Biomedical Scientists are, without doubt, under attack within Blood Transfusion within the UK. To a certain extent, this is our own fault. For years, other disciplines within Pathology were introducing automation, but no such automation was "available" for Blood Transfusion, because of the mistaken belief that clotted, rather than EDTA samples were required, so that complement-activating antibodies could be detected.

With the advent of monoclonal antibodies, including, crucially, monoclonal anti-human globulin, it was realised that complement-activating antibodies could, with rare exceptions, be detected by an anti-IgG monospecific reagent, allowing the use of EDTA blood samples and, as a result, automation.

This meant that the Blood Transfusion Laboratories were suddenly "over-staffed" with expensive Biomedical Scientists, who could be replaced with less expensive MedicalLaboratory Assistants or Health Technical Officers, who could perform tasks such as loading samples onto the automation, with a Biomedical Scientist available to interpret results that were not interpreted by the automation.

The Agenda for Change should have ensured that the Biomedical Scientists who have the ability to interpret serological difficult cases were protected and paid a reasonable salary, but the Boards of hospitals are taking it upon themselves to replace all but a very few of these with MLAs or HTOs (or, possibly, Higher Health Technical Officers, HHTOs).

They have brought in Management Assessors from outside the profession and the Biomedical Scientists are being down-graded and made redundant.

However, it is my opinion, any purely my opinion, that this is going far to far the other way. Whereas, without doubt, there were too many Biomedical Scientists employed when automation was introduced, they are now going far to far the other way.

The number of Biomedical Scientists employed within the correct salary scale in hospital blood banks, and who are able to interpret "difficult" results, is now getting dangerously low, and those who are employed at a lower pat scale will leave. Mistakes WILL occur, and when Trusts are sued, as is inevitable, the number of properly trained staff within blood transfusion will be examined in court - and I think that the hospitals will lose.

Unless the managers realise this, within a very short time span, there will be huge implications within the EU Courts, let alone other areas of the Law.

I think, therefore, that, although the BMSs in Blood Transfusion are, at present, under "nuclear" attack, it will only be a short time before the MHRA steps in, and the short-sightedness of those involved will be obvious to all, and the correct balance between BMS and MLa (HTO/HHTO) staff will be re-established.

There goes my knighthood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RR1]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Needs

<< Mistakes WILL occur, and when Trusts are sued, as is inevitable, the number of properly trained staff within blood transfusion will be examined in court - and I think that the hospitals will lose.

I think, therefore, that, although the BMSs in Blood Transfusion are, at present, under "nuclear" attack, it will only be a short time before the MHRA steps in, and the short-sightedness of those involved will be obvious to all, and the correct balance between BMS and MLa (HTO/HHTO) staff will be re-established.>>

Actually Malcolm, I can't see this happening for at least 10yrs, after which the majority of us with any technical/QA skills will have left the profession. Even the MHRA is going through staffing problems- and they certainly won't be able to keep up inspections to the level at which they began. With the impending changes being bulldozed through (and don't even mention "change control"!!) the majority of us will not even be able to maintain our incident handling systems, let alone teaching and training aspects- so an increase in serious mistakes will not be noticed within departments. Clever idea to close the NPSA around this time too don't you think??

I suspect haemovigilance reporting in the UK will be going downhill rapidly from this year onwards, especially as majority of managers that will be in charge of Blood banks will be someone with no transfusion background. Someone quite senior recently said to me that "transfusion is really simple now that we have Gel cards"!!

Edited February 18, 2011 by RR1
forgot quote

[Malcolm Needs ☆]

Actually the MHRA has had staffing problems for a long time Rashmi - but in their case it is some of the individuals they employ (one in particular, who shall remain nameless), not the overall shortage of staff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with what you say.

:devilish::devilish:

[adiescast]

Someone quite senior recently said to me that "transfusion is really simple now that we have Gel cards"!!

Wow, that is scary! Pretty soon we'll have people running around with pepper grinders thinking they can point them at someone and cure them! (Sorry, a reference to the original Star Trek series - many of the medical scanners and such portrayed in the series were pepper grinders)

[RR1]

Actually the MHRA has had staffing problems for a long time Rashmi - but in their case it is some of the individuals they employ (one in particular, who shall remain nameless), not the overall shortage of staff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:

Malcolm, you're SO BAD! I hear they like this person up North VERY much !!!!

Thanks adiescast, it is a little scary - especially considering folks making comments like this could be leading transfusion departments in the UK, in the near future.