Jump to content

Talk:Medical laboratory scientist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kdixon11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV & Nonencyclopedic entries

[edit]

Removed/edited sections for non-neutral POV and nonencyclopedic information. Also removed stub tags as someone has kindly given us a great deal of information. While more information is welcome and encouraged to be submitted, please ensure you comply with Wikipedia's rules. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedlav (talk • contribs) 08:29, 19 October 2006

  • Information is VERY american and is not necesssarily accurate for other countries. A notation to this effect would be useful. Links to professional associations / licenture bodies in various countries would be valuable (e.g. www.csmls.org in Canada) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.202.182 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 January 2007

Very American

[edit]

In the UK, 'clinical scientist' is something a bit different. It would be nice if this article wasn't so biased towards the US. In the UK, a clinical scientist interprets the data, interacts with patients, and has clinical consultancy training (taking the same exams as the MD for the Royal College of Pathologists) -- what's described here would be a 'biomedical scientist' in the UK.

I'm thinking of perhaps making a page for the UK version of the clinical scientist. Or could this be intercalated with this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.159.136 (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed

[edit]

There is a general need for cleanup on this article. As it stands right now it needs heavy reorganization to make the information flow more coherantly. This includes changing headings and moving information around. The intro is needs to be rewritten to remove POV material and make it a proper summary of the article. The article seems to contain link spam as the list of links at the bottom seems overly large and has no descriptions as to what they refer to or why they aresignificant. Article also needs sourcing. Would someone with some background give it a look over? Is Medical Technologist a general term for this type of health professional? Is it only used by one health care company? Some clarification on this would help. --Lendorien 14:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've reorganized the sections a bit to try to make it more thematically coherant. Still needs expert attention. As a side note, a look at a lot of the links makes me think that most could be culled. Many seem to be links to medical technology companies and not directly related to the subject matter.--Lendorien 14:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've given it a bit of an overhaul: cleaned up weak writing, tightened the language to be more encyclopedic, rearranged to provide more logical flow, removed some irrelevant and redundant material, fixed a couple of links, etc. However, it still needs work, most desperately with links and references. There are only a few actual tags, but there is lots of unsupported information that needs to have references cited. Also the list of external links is completely ridiculous and needs desperately to be culled. And finally, I'm still getting a handle on Wikipedia's preferred formatting (section headings, etc) so that probably needs to be touched up as well. I may be back after I cleanse my mental palate, but for now I've done all I can with it. --edi 14:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More grammar edits. I also changed the caps on section headings for Medical Technology Specialty Areas, The Medical Technologist's Role in the Healthcare Process and The Medical Technologist's Place in the Hospital. More edits needed. Stevecalloway 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copy-edits to Job Duties. I also changed caps on the Job duties section heading. Stevecalloway 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caps on all section headings. Copy-edits to Certification and licensing. Stevecalloway 11:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copy-edits to Nomenclature section. I removed the following:

The title "medical laboratory technician" denotes a person who has completed an associates degree and is not certified to perform tests of high complexity[1] under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) of 1988[2]. (Both MTs and MLTs are, however, required to sit for a national examination before being certified.) Thus the MLT should logically be referred to as a med tech, but this is not the case in most settings. Generally, a medical technologist is called a med tech and a medical laboratory technician is called an MLT.

These could possibly be worked back in. The first link clarifies that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has had the authority to implement the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) but makes no reference to MT. The second link is a description of CLIA from the New Mexico Department of Health. A better reference is to the actual Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) of 1988.

Stevecalloway 12:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working on clean up: Removed "Laboratory results are 80% of a doctor's diagnosis." replaced with "Laboratory results aid clinical practitioners in confirming or ruling out diagnoses, chronic disease changes, and effects of medical therapies."BloodGuru (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Linkspam

[edit]

Someone needs to go through the list of links. It's gotten long and I'm certain most of it is linkspam. --Lendorien 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think now? Stevecalloway 11:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

In the "see also" section, those articles should link to med tech from their "see also" sections in order to increase traffic to this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozmaweezer (talk • contribs) 13:56, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Sorted, Removed vendor links:

Stevecalloway 13:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Med tech article suggestions

[edit]

1) Check out the 10/18/2006 05:17 (last) version in the history tab. It is obviously not neutral point of view (NPOV) and it is not exactly "encyclopedic in nature," but it has a lot of good ideas for the article. Here is a link to that page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medical_technologist&diff=82152964&oldid=82124399

2) The article needs some images like RN, vacutainer, some automated analyzers, laboratory centrifuge, etc.

3) If you visit the biomedical scientist article, pathologist, blood bank, or micro they have boxes of information and links at the bottom of their pages. Shouldn't med tech be included in there somewhere? Shouldn't the box appear at the bottom of the med tech page? Are these boxes called templates?

4) As far as giving the article a world view, I don't have any input on that because I only work in the USA. Someone from England needs to do that I guess. Or merge the article with the Biomedical Scientist article if that's an English Med tech.Ozmaweezer 12:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) I suggest you add articles about licensure laws in the US. Most other healthcare professions require licensure and it is atrocious that licensure laws are fought by the AMA and the AHA to prevent having to pay more for licensed laboratory professionals. If the general public was aware that laboratory tests being performed are not being scrutinized as closely due to high work volumes and individuals with little or no credentials (only on the job training for some) and limited continuing education, there would be more concern. The laboratory is "hidden" from public view and phlebotomists drawing the blood are often the only representatives of the laboratory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie 2788 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4) Regarding the paragraph about the future of Medical Technologists: it says the field is promising..with a chance to make "embarrassing" amounts of money...Well, based upon my 25 years in Medicine the factors mentioned DO NOT NESCESSARILY mean there will be any increases in pay for Technologists. To be realistic here..the amount of need for an exam does not result in a pay raise for Technologist. And neither does the number of patients achieving "baby-boomer" status. In the USA (where I have worked professionally for over 20 years) alot comes down to what the government and the Insurance companies have decided to pay for an exam. That sets the standard, more than any other factor. It doesn't much matter how many people need a test..it's wether they someone is paying for it. THAT decides if it will be done. Ultimately no one works for free...and the medical community can't either. Hence...anyone looking into this field should be wary of claims like "embarassing" amounts of money. Do your own research. Don't go into this field (or any other) based on projections of "embarrasing" amounts of money...this can change overnight in USA, and has. I am now out of work on account of that..and able to write this note in my spare time. So be wary. do your own research to see if the projections in that paragraph really are true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.214.244 (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and reworked the last paragraph, it was too conversational and biased, e.g. embarrassing money. As far as the baby-boomer thing, it's true there will be a shortage; but you're correct in saying that will not necessarily translate to higher wages. Many laboratory tests like routine chemistry are getting more automated. I'll have to dig up some data on these theories...BloodGuru (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phlebotomy Duties Expected of Medical Technologists?

[edit]

It is my understanding that they expect MT's to be able to practice phlebotomy work, I do not know how that has changed since AIDS became an issue, or if that had an impact on students choosing MT as a major. Comments?

71.127.23.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


For most current students, HIV has been around as long as we have. MT's are expected to know how to perform phlebotomy, but depending on the institution it may not be expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.175.226 (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All human tissue/fluid samples are to be treated with universal precautions. In other words, whether a blood sample may contain HCV, HIV, or no infectious agent, they are all treated AS INFECTIOUS. The only way to maintain safety is to simply assume that all samples pose the same risk of infection whether they actually do or not.BloodGuru (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Technologist??

[edit]

Hi you guys, i'm studying for Medidical Technologist in the Netherlands and the content of this article does not apply to what my study is about ... I've nothing to do with analysing fluids and lab work. What I do has to do with applying technology in the medical field (MRI's, CT-scanners, Domotica Applications, hi-tech medical instruments etc.). My study lasts 4 years to achieve an "ing." title. It consists of 60% technical and 40% medical classes (mostly anatomy and pathology). I'd like to add this info to make this article more complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imio (talk • contribs) 08:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting and important observation. I recently overheard nurses discussing "Med-Techs" who were actually CNA's. The term medical technologist vs. lab-tech etc can be very ambiguous. I propose "medical technologist" be either renamed or linked as "Clinical Laboratory Professional," which is what younger 'Medical Technologists' prefer anyay. CLP provides a concise description: a professional person working in a clinical laboratory. Thoughts?BloodGuru (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the title of "Medical Technologist" is more appropriate because historically it is the most recognized term for the professional. It appears that most employers use this as the job title and most MT's I know (including myself) graduated from a school of medical technology hence the title. Postoak (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, many 'other' medical professionals don't have a clue what happens in the laboratory, or how one is educated and certified to work in a clinical lab. When I went from MT to MD student, I was frankly appalled by this lack of knowledge. To most, the lab is a black box where samples go, are lost or switched, and numbers on a computer screen come out - sometimes to disbelief. I can't tell you how many "It must be a laboratory error." remarks I've heard on the wards. I'll work on a way to further clarify the profession here. BloodGuru (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've heard the same comments, although they seem to know who we are when they need a stat result! I revised and combined the "shortage" paragraphs for clarity and added more refs. Postoak (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a term which, unfortunately, has become ambiguous. The Med-Tech, is NOT a CNA etc. The CNA is a nursing assistant, the "Med-Tech", classically has completed 4 years of a BS program. There maybe a cultural difference, but there is also a regional issue within the US. Many people I've met in health care have identified themselves as MT's without our strict laboratory training. These tend to be CNAs with unclear ideas about their position in health care. My Opinion ;) Dr. Guru (talk)
I feel it should be made clear at the beginning of the article that this article applies to a profession/career specifically within the USA. Medical lab staff in other countries have other professional titles, different roles and different training pathways. Alternatively the article could have a more general name, and talk about the roles of medical lab staff in a more generalised way. Purple 01:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generalists

[edit]

Most Medical Laboratory Scientist are generalists, skilled in all areas of the clinical laboratory. This is not a true statement. Almost all MT's that work in hospitals of fair size (serving a population of ~30,000) are resigned into one to three specialties. Generalists only exist in very, very low traffic hospitals, clinics, or most commonly research laboratories. 76.232.3.23 (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a true statement, at least here in MInnesota. By Generalist, I mean running, Heme, Coag, Blood Bank, UA, Chem and sometimes some Micro. LOTS of gerneralists in the major Metro Hospitals.

It is a true statement. I work at a hospital that serves a population of about 300,000 in the California high desert and the core lab techs do hematology, chemistry, urinalysis and blood bank. The micro lab is the only place where there are specialists who don't rotate and actually the supervisor of micro is cross-trained to work in all areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Medical laboratory scientist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Medical laboratory scientist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medical laboratory scientist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Laboratory Technician is NOT a Medical Laboratory Scientist

[edit]

A MLT in the United States is NOT the same as a medical lab scientist. The MLT has an associate's degree, not a B.S. and cannot by CLIA regulations run all tests in the clinical lab, especially in blood bank and microbiology. This article uses the designation MLT interchangeably with MLS and it's just not correct. This needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

The article Medical technologist seems to be a duplicate of this article. I'm proposing that it be merged into Medical laboratory scientist as this article is higher quality. @Richard001 and Waughd: I've opened a merge proposal on the Medical laboratory scientist talkpage. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support having these as two pages is confusing, at the least. Waughd (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Merged SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medical_laboratory_scientist&oldid=1200071046"