Employee training time length at blood centers

[thmdn]

Hi Everyone,

What would be considered an appropriate length of time for training a new employee coming to work in the lab performing viral marker testing on donor samples or someone coming to work in the hospital distribution department who will be taking blood orders and possibly initiating some quarantines?

If you currently work or have worked at a blood center (regardless of size), was there an established time limit for

training, for example 3 months or 6 months, before the new employee was signed off and working independently ?

Any info will help,

Thanks

[Barbarakym]

I would like to ask the same question for a regular transfusion service. How long do you orientate people before allowing them to work on their own? Do you allow unsupervised work before they are 'signed off'? Is discussion and procedure reading requirement only required at your facility? I have had serious disagreements (me on the side of real training) with managment who do not feel they have this time to give. Am I being too conservative? Our TS is in Ca, USA. TJC is our inspection agency.

[JEMarti]

In my last lab supervisory position we took ~3 months to train, rotating the new staff member to all sections of the lab. All training was done on day shift where we had sufficient staff to check their work. Technically, they were not allowed to do work unsupervised until they were signed off. After they were signed off they would get a competency test consisting of a number of wet samples they had to work up and demonstrate that they could perform basic tests correctly and catch and resolve discrepancies, mf reactions etc.

I don't think that there is any magic time limit that is necessary to train people. It really depends on how large and complex your lab is and how much you can do to train them.

[Barbarakym]

,.... All training was done on day shift where we had sufficient staff to check their work. Technically, they were not allowed to do work unsupervised until they were signed off... I don't think that there is any magic time limit that is necessary to train people. QUOTE]

So you don't schedule the new person as if they were on the schedule? They are extra staff? By Technically, what does that mean? To be they are supervised (someone to check and hear and no work is being done ok) or they are working independently and you don't know what is being released unless there is a problem. Is work being released without someone else reviewing it before they are signed off? If there is a mistake who is responsible? Is that 3 months just in blood bank in different areas? I know there is not a magic time. Some people who have a lot of knowledge can walk right through things just getting used to the computer system and lab specific policies (as opposed to technique). Other people have not had BB in years and maybe not much correct training at all (someone coming from a chem reference lab for example). Obviously more trainng needed. But in general is time given in other labortories by the dept scheduler for this training? And who determines if the person is well enough trained (scheduler / director/ or bb supervisor who is doing the training)?

Also for people who come from labs where there is rotation through Chem, Heme, UA, Coag as well as BB is the time while being trained continuous in 1 dept? Or are they put to work in chem 3 days (signed off), then trained in BB 1 day, then moved to GY 3 days (signed off except BB), then 2 weeks later back to BB for 2 days? OR is it a straight 3-5 weeks (ex) in BB tell signed off?

[Annadele]

In our Transfusion Service laboratory (in a 900+ bed hospital), new staff are trained for 2-3 months. It's my understanding that the exact amount of time varies depending on their level of experience and whether or not they've rotated through the laboratory as a student. (Many of the new hires here do.)

I love the suggestion to incorporate competency testing with wet samples into training, preferably tested in parallel by an experienced technologist. This aspect of training will help the new employee gain confidence as well as help you gain confidence in their abilities or highlight areas where their training can use some reinforcement. I also recommend showing new hires your lab's deviations from the past year at the end of training (as a way to gives them a heads up of where things go wrong most often) and suggesting that they read through the immunohem work-ups of others on a weekly basis (or, even better, incorporating them into a rounding scheme where serology seniors share more complicated work-ups and their resolution).

Above all, cultivate an atmosphere in your laboratory where everyone is a teacher and encourage your techs to develop teaching as a skill! For your senior technologists and managers, teaching ability and enthusiasm for the profession should be a CRUCIAL consideration when it comes to advancement. In a profession that more and more graduates seem to be using as a way station, the average technologist will have less and less experience over time. The only way to ensure that patients don't suffer for it is to beef up your training program. And conveying enthusiasm to a new hire not only makes them more likely to stay, it also instills pride in their profession that can encourage them to stay techs!

In my last lab supervisory position we took ~3 months to train, rotating the new staff member to all sections of the lab. All training was done on day shift where we had sufficient staff to check their work. Technically, they were not allowed to do work unsupervised until they were signed off. After they were signed off they would get a competency test consisting of a number of wet samples they had to work up and demonstrate that they could perform basic tests correctly and catch and resolve discrepancies, mf reactions etc.

I don't think that there is any magic time limit that is necessary to train people. It really depends on how large and complex your lab is and how much you can do to train them.

[thmdn]

I would like to thank all of you for the input