[Histonet] CAP question on grossing

[Charles.Embrey]

CAP and CLIA have never made a separation in "transference" from
grossing.  Ever CLIA statement I have ever read on the subject states
that grossing any tissue is high complexity testing.  "Transference" is
not even recognized in the CAP checklist.  I routinely assist on CAP
inspections and I would love to see a lab try to sell me on
"transference".  Of course it is only a Phase II write up but if the
problem is not documented as corrected the lab can lose its
accreditation. Liability and appropriate pay are other considerations I
personally have mentioned in other e-mails but have been flamed for.  My
personal feeling is that if someone wants to undervalue their talent and
work that is up to them.  As long as labs can get techs to do part of
the pathologists job for about a tenth of the pathologist's salary,
those people will be prayed upon.

Charles Embrey, PA(ASCP)   

-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Ellin [mailto:JEllin <@t> yumaregional.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 7:36 PM
To: Charles.Embrey
Subject: RE: [Histonet] CAP question on grossing

What about transference, our pathologist's are saying that small bx's or
anything that does not require cutting or manipulation falls under this
category. They are saying any registered or registry eligable can do
this portion of the gross.  What needs to happen is have stated black in
white what techs can or can not do.  This not only puts a lot of
liability on the tech, it also is having tech do a PA or pathologist job
at a techs wage, which is not right at all.  Were can someone find out
what the scale is for grossing tech's?  I know it depends on the
institution, but there has to be some sort of support for this other
than requirements that CLIA and CAP set forth.  Also what other than a
phase two what can also happen if a facility is caught doing this.??


Jesus Ellin
Yuma Regional Medical Center