Hi, That was a good article. I really do hope I am not the only one that was just mortified at the high numbers of bad sections being produced. Once in a while on a bit of difficult tissue is one thing, but consistent poor quality is inexcusable. Come to think of it that was actually a rather depressing article.
Amos On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:00 PM, <histonet-requ...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu>wrote: > Message: 13 > Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:36:15 -0400 > From: Bob Richmond <rsrichm...@gmail.com> > Subject: [Histonet] Re: Embedding process etc. > To: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > Message-ID: > <CAOKsRH6BBMkqLZEVCY=e4bkswxz6acrsy3otrx+f1ob-tkt...@mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Bill O'Donnell observes: > > >>I once worked for a very demanding pathologist and because of his > expectations, the whole crew put out near perfection. Pathologists that are > "OK" with what they get, so long as they can make a diagnosis, are a huge > part of that problem.<< > > I very much agree, though I've often been guilty as charged. Edwards > Deming - whom of course American MBA's learn to ridicule - was very > much concerned with constant feedback, and constant attention to > fixing little problems before they turn into big problems. > > The histotechnologist who never looks at a slide and the pathologist > who is afraid to complain about unsatisfactory work are two sides of > the same problem. > > This month's Journal of Histotechnology has an article about quality > assurance of GI biopsies that everyone concerned with this issue > should read. I'll try to get review of it onto Histonet. > > Bob Richmond > Samurai Pathologist > Knoxville TN > _______________________________________________ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet