Travis, I agree with everyone's valuable thoughts regarding your question. As a supervisor, it's imperative to communicate with people in such a way that they change themselves. With some people the act of "getting the task done," has such an urgent need that can lead them to become careless & aggressive, leaping before looking & even speaking without thinking first. In histology, we know it's more important to avoid making mistakes - to be certain every detail is accurate & in place. And, it's important to find the balance between the 2 intentions of "getting the task done" & "getting it done right!"
It's also important to create & develop relationships with those you work with. The desire to contribute to others & be appreciated for what you do, is one of the most powerful motivational forces known. And yes, sometimes you get what you give! Giving appreciation & getting along with others go hand-in-hand - & as a supervisor it's another balancing act. Also when people have the same priorities, a misunderstanding or conflict is highly UNLIKELY. All the best Maria Mejia San Francisco, CA On Dec 17, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Morken, Timothy wrote: > Travis, > > Histology has a very complex workflow AND requires "artisan" level > workmanship to deliver a product. Those two together nearly guarantee > mistakes, mostly minor, but sometimes literally life-threatening to patients. > The goal is to instill a sense of Best Quality in the techs. A large part of > achieving that attitude is to ensure the pathologists and administrators are > behind the techs 100% and ALLOW the techs to do Best Quality - ie, accept > that Best Quality will sometimes mean slower turnaround time. Does that > aspect mean more people are needed? That's your call, but can be determined > by workload accounting. > > The attitude should be that the SYSTEM makes the mistake, not the individual. > It is not likely a person makes a mistake on purpose, but instead is it some > aspect of the system that allows them to make a mistake (though "shortcuts" > can be thought of as intentionally risking making mistakes "on purpose," the > "purpose" being to save time or effort). > > Workflows can be "engineered" to ensure some mistakes don't happen. Protocols > must be followed to the letter by EVERYONE. No workarounds allowed (a > workaround is an indication that there is something wrong in the system - the > employee feels the need to take shortcuts. Why? BTW, Bill Gates said the > most important word in his vocabulary is "why." Why is something done the way > it is? Why does a mistake happen at a certain point? ). In failure analysis a > problem is approached by asking 5 levels of WHY? After asking WHY 5 times > back down the workflow chain you usually find the root cause of a problem. If > not, you keep asking why until the root cause is found. > > For instance, we worked out a slide labeling protocol at the microtome that, > if followed, will ensure the tech does not make labeling errors. All > participated in working this out and so have bought into the system. All new > employees are trained in that system. That will eventually be followed by > barcoding, but that is a year away at least. But our protocol has nearly > eliminated labeling errors (we still get a few sneaking in here and there but > as we catch them we try to figure out how to engineer them away). > > We also finally instituted the printing of cassettes directly from our LIS > rather than using a stand-alone printer or hand-writing. That has almost > totally eliminated cassette labeling errors - we used to have hundreds per > month, mainly by residents putting in cassettes that they did not enter in > our LIS, or making simple typo errors on a stand-alone cassette labeler, or > hand-written cassettes. > > All these methods need to be investigated. > > Rewards are also very helpful. We give out "Bear hugs" that are $5 gift > certificates to the campus store, cafeteria, various food vendors in the > institution, etc. it's a small reward, but people actually appreciate it. We > also have "Star Awards" of $50 gift cards for those times when someone does > something more beyond the usual. The receiver chooses the card they want from > about 2 dozen available (coffee shops, VISA, various stores, etc). > > > Good luck with it! > > > Tim Morken > Supervisor, Electron Microscopy/Neuromuscular Special Studies > Department of Pathology > UC San Francisco Medical Center > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > [mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Rene J Buesa > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 8:38 AM > To: Travis Troyer; histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > Subject: Re: [Histonet] Basis for Quality Work in a Histotech > > First I want you to excuse me, but I do not think that you are really > qualified to supervise 2 histotechs if you need to ask for such quality > guidance. > You end by bemoaning about "budget crunch" and because of that it seems to me > that your 2 histotechs are not receiving a "decent" salary and, as everybody > knows, you are getting what you are paying for. > With 10 years of experience you should know that the first step for quality > of sections is quality of fixation and quality of processing. You have first > to manage that aspect. > Quality of sections comes after wards and there is no "standard" for mistakes > and for what you are describing it seems that mistakes are frequent. By the > way, if the pathologists are not pleased, they will not it take on the > histotechs, but on you as a supervisor unable to provide them the quality > they require. > There is no such thing as "instant reward" for a good quality job; the > histotech should not be treated as "dogs receiving a cookie after a trick > performed" but there are 2 tools: you need to keep track of the mistakes → > counsel the HT after a mistake → retrain them → keep a track of mistakes and > there are verbal and written counselings and an annual evaluation, I am sure > you know that. > The ideal limit of mistakes is "0" but there is some acceptable mistakes > limits, as long as they are few and far between. The pathologists are the > ones who can tell you what they are willing to accept as mistakes limits. Ask > them. > It seems that if your 2 HTs do not improve, you should start looking for > replacements, but they should be better paid, and if the mistakes continue at > a high rate, you should put your 10 years experience to work and start doing > some bench work René J. > > > From: Travis Troyer <ttro...@petersonlab.com> > To: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 5:34 PM > Subject: [Histonet] Basis for Quality Work in a Histotech > > This is a question for all of the lab supervisors. I am the supervisor of > two histotechs. I am not doing techwork now, but have 10 years of > experience. The pathologists are getting more and more upset at the lack of > quality in the work and the mistakes that are happening. I was wondering if > anyone had some ideas on what sort of a goal to set up and how to > reward/punish for variations from that goal. For example, if the goal is > three mistakes for the month, what is the best way to reward them for making > that goal and what would be best if they had more mistakes in a given time > frame. We are all feeling the budget crunch and the pathologists are trying > to figure out a good solution. > > Thanks, > Travis Troyer > _______________________________________________ > Histonet mailing list > Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet > _______________________________________________ > Histonet mailing list > Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet > _______________________________________________ > Histonet mailing list > Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet _______________________________________________ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
