Talk:Medical laboratory: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 87.198.229.90 - "" |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WPMED|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
{{WPMED|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
||
==SmithKlein Beecham Settlement== |
|||
There is an Aug 2009 neutrality challenge referenced in the article, but I don't see any active discussion. I see no reason to have this paragraph in this article. The claims regarding the economics of generic hospital labs are totally unsubstantiated, i.e. before the SKB "scandal", labs were profit centers, since then they are economic losses. Compliance officers were not a response to this specific scandal, as they were around before this. This paragraph could be re-written to be about billing or economics in general, but I don't think it would add much to the page. I think it should be removed altogether, or if someone wants to make a SKBL lawsuit and settlement page this could be moved there. It should be noted that the economics of the clinical lab is very country-specific.[[Special:Contributions/173.8.220.209|173.8.220.209]] ([[User talk:173.8.220.209|talk]]) 20:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Dubious Hierarchy== |
==Dubious Hierarchy== |
||
Revision as of 20:25, 10 February 2010
 | Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
SmithKlein Beecham Settlement
There is an Aug 2009 neutrality challenge referenced in the article, but I don't see any active discussion. I see no reason to have this paragraph in this article. The claims regarding the economics of generic hospital labs are totally unsubstantiated, i.e. before the SKB "scandal", labs were profit centers, since then they are economic losses. Compliance officers were not a response to this specific scandal, as they were around before this. This paragraph could be re-written to be about billing or economics in general, but I don't think it would add much to the page. I think it should be removed altogether, or if someone wants to make a SKBL lawsuit and settlement page this could be moved there. It should be noted that the economics of the clinical lab is very country-specific.173.8.220.209 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Dubious Hierarchy
The following paragraph appears in the article The following is the hierarchy of the clinical laboratory staff from highest authority to lowest: Pathologist, Clinical Biologist, Microbiologist, Biochemist, pathologist assistant, Microbiologist assistant, Medical Biochemist assistant, laboratory manager, department supervisor, chief technologist (lead technologist), cytotechnologist, medical technologist, histotechnologist, medical laboratory technician, medical laboratory assistant (lab aide), phlebotomist, transcriptionist, and specimen processor (secretary).
It is kind of silly to have such a precisely ordered chain of being for each and every role in the lab, and while there is some relevant progression, some of the distinctions are quite arbitrary. I want some sort of citation to support this please -- 202.124.109.172 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Dubious Hierarchy
Agreed. In clinical labs (in Ireland and U.K. anyway) this higherarchy as outlined above does not exist. Specailists in each department of the lab of equal experience and qualifications are viewed as equals i.e. a biochemist and a haemotoligist. a phlebotomist is rarley in the lab and could be excluded from this list as could the specimin processor and transcriptionist. some of the terms used are interchangable i.e. cytologist/histologgits. Also in Ireland and the UK a "Medical Technologist" is known as "Medical Scientist" or less commonly as a "Clinical Laborotory Scientist". Lab technicians (non scientists with 1 or two years training) do not preform clinical diagnostic work here. their duties include. making dilutions of stock reagents, preparing electrophoresis gels, maintaining equipment, cleaning, monitoring lab stock (pipette tips, chemicals, gloves)ordering more as neccesery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.229.90 (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)