CLINICAL LAB SCIENEC

CHAPTER 2: LABORATORY PERSONNEL CREDENTIALING AND FACILITY ACCREDITATION 55
In February 2008, efforts were renewed to gain licensure for personnel in
Massachusetts. Pathologists from Massachusetts successfully persuaded the legislators
not to consider the bill in a House floor vote to establish state licensure
of clinical laboratory personnel. The CAP and the Massachusetts Society of
Pathologists (MSP), along with the Massachusetts Hospital Association, Massachusetts
Medical Society, Massachusetts Cytology Society, American Association
of Bioanalysts, and American Clinical Laboratory Association, all opposed the
bill. The CAP and the MSP, in a letter to members of the Massachusetts Committee
on Ways and Means, stated, “The personnel qualifications established
in the legislation are arbitrary, overly stringent, excessive and not commensurate
with the demands of the clinical laboratory positions for which licensure is
contemplated.” The Massachusetts bill died a slow death and no further efforts
have been reported to pursue a new version of the bill. This is the opposition
most often encountered by laboratory professionals who seek to advance their
profession.
There is a shortage of qualified laboratory workers, and laboratory managers
are rather reluctant to further shrink the pool of persons who might be
working in their facilities. Rightly or wrongly, many of these managers think that
would be the case if personnel licensure became a fact. Many believe they know
how to hire qualified personnel, but the charge has been made that in reality they
do not want to pay more for personnel with some sort of documentation of their
competence such as licensure. In actuality, if licensure became a requirement in
each state, the initial shock would wear off and the personnel shortage would
most likely begin to abate. The publicity might bring more students into the profession,
as occurred in the nursing profession, thereby alleviating the shortage
through more concerted recruitment efforts. In addition, the use of more qualified
and educated workers could serve to offset the increased personnel costs by
improving efficiency and productivity. But there is one thing of which medical
laboratory professionals can be sure. The battles on various playing fields will
undoubtedly continue into the foreseeable future, based on current negotiations
between ASCP, ASCLS, NCA, and AMT.
Summary
Although there are differences, accreditation, certification, and licensure are
similar in that they provide formal recognition of facilities, institutions, and personnel
through standards that have been established to ensure competence and
effectiveness in meeting responsibilities to the public. In fact, all of these methods
have one goal in mind—to protect the public. There have always been those
who, for their own personal gain, would circumvent the system for ensuring
competency of professionals, even if the patient is harmed.
Most often a health care facility is accredited, and tenets of the accreditation
require that the facility only hire personnel who are licensed or registered by
professional organizations. Certification and accreditation are voluntary, while
licensure is required by the government. This function of credentialing professional
employees retained in most cases in the state in which the facility exists or
where the professional is employed.
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.