[Histonet] Practical Exam

Fri Feb 20 17:08:06 CST 2009

As one who first came into histology by working with the lowest phyla, 
and has continued to teach students the procedures for whatever critter 
they are working on, it seems to me that the basics and criteria for 
producing a properly embedded, sectioned, and stained H&E tissue sample 
are the same for all. Special stains might not always work exactly the 
same on different organisms (especially those from a marine environment 
vs. terrestrial) or demonstrate the same features (e.g., invertebrates 
lack myelin, fish erythrocytes are nucleated), but understanding whether 
someone can produce a good slide using any organism is the same. Indeed, 
those who work on insects, crustaceans, bivalves, and sponges, would 
welcome having human tissue to section! And those critters provide ample 
training in troubleshooting in histology! (My mentor at the marine 
research lab sacrificed a white rabbit for another student to work on 
who wanted to get the HT certification.) Just as I am sure not every 
piece of appendix looks entirely the same and processes exactly the 
same, there needs to be some standards but also some acceptance of 
diversity?

Esther Peters, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
George Mason University

O'Donnell, Bill wrote:
> It is interesting that this topic of OJT/School/Registered/Non-registered resurfaces every so often, and that it still evokes so many responses. 
>
> Time to contribute a new thought (at least new to me, you know, like buying underwear at the Goodwill) (Sorry, a little Friday humor)
>
> Perhaps the practical was too narrow in its scope. It was certainly skewed in the direction of those in clinical work. Asking for human tissues when you had no recourse to them could, force a persons hand, to reach out for help in procuring tissues. That is not cheating. I don't think anyone here would call it that either. That is resourcefulness.  I was lucky, I guess, in retrospect, that I worked in a clinical lab with plenty of tissues and resources to help me get it done. It never even dawned on me that other techs wouldn't have the same resources.
>
> That's not my point.
>
> Those who choose to cheat will always be around. Taking a strong moral stand against it, that's a good thing, but also a given stance because we all learned from our first grade teacher that we aren't supposed to cheat. I'm certain if cheating could be proven in a practical exam, that person(s) would not have been certified. Tough to prove though, isn't it. I'm not defending cheating, but I still hold it was a weak reason to pull the practical.
>
> OK, that's not really my point either - sorry, here it comes......
>
> Now, I'm opening a whole new sub-topic. I offer my apologies for those who have been trying to skip over all these registry posts :}
>
> What I'm hearing is a general desire to have the practical returned. Great, I'm all for it. But perhaps we need to look at the nature of the practical. 
>
> Should there be a different one for those in veterinary histology than the one for clinical (human tissues) histologists? Should there be one that is aimed at those who do research work? 
> It would in my opinion be logical and certainly fair-minded. 
> The practical should be to show the you can do the work you are currently doing, albeit in a standardized way. That is everyones PAS on an appendix should turn out to the same standard for the exam. But is it fair to ask someone, especially in this economy, to do things for their practical, that are removed from their practice? 
>
> Another sub-point: 
>
> If I take my practical while working clinical and later take a job doing veterinary work, granted, I might have the very basic of skills down, but, as those of you in vet work can attest, it's a whole 'nother animal.(no pun intended....well, actually it was)
>
> But the same would be true of someone coming into clinical from veterinary. 
>
> Back to the main point:
>
> It would mean two or more sets of reviewers for the practical portion. Logistically this would add a layer of complication in getting started, but it is not insurmountable.
>
> If cheating can be arrested, or at least made less attractive, by something like this, and it might actually return the practical (because the cost issue is a non-issue, as it can be made up in the fees applied), it should at least be given a few seconds thought.
>
> I want to take just a little more of your time to commend all of those techs who did have to beg and borrow tissues, reagents and textbooks to finish and pass the registry practical. It shows a type of moxie we don't always see everyday. But it doesn't need to be that way if the practical is ever re-established.
>
> Now as to cheating and the general moral downfall of our society......I don't want to go there except to say that, no, I don't want to go there either.
>
> Just a few more thoughts (just thoughts and nothing more) on the subject:
>
> Should there be both a practical and written exam for each type human/non-human/research/pharmaceutical/food science of histology?
>
> Should one be recertified when changing types of histology jobs?
>
> Do blondes really have more fun?
>
>
> Have a grand weekend, and thanks for plowing through an old-man's post. Next one will be shorter. Maybe just a grunt or guff-fa
>
> William (Bill) O'Donnell, HT (ASCP) QIHC 
> Lead Histologist
> Good Samaritan Hospital
> 10 East 31st Street
> Kearney, NE 68847 
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pamela Marcum [mailto:pmarcum <@t> vet.upenn.edu] 
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:11 PM
> To: 'Podawiltz, Thomas'; rjbuesa <@t> yahoo.com; 'Histonet'; O'Donnell, Bill
> Subject: RE: [Histonet] Practical Exam
>
> Hi,
>
> This has nothing to do with Bill or you Tom however, when the practical was still being given people did come on histonet and ask for tissue in blocks and help finishing the exam.  It was not a good thing and showed that some people were not able to acquire the tissues needed or were not looking for them.  Since I saw this several times and many of us were upset about it, I can say at least a few people did not do their own if they could avoid it.
> I don't remember names or locations so please don't ask for them.  
>
> Pamela A Marcum
> University of Pennsylvania
> School of Veterinary Medicine
> Comparative Orthopedic Laboratory (CORL)
> 382 W Street Rd
> Kennett Square PA 19438
> 610-925-6278
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> [mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Podawiltz,
> Thomas
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:57 PM
> To: rjbuesa <@t> yahoo.com; Histonet; O'Donnell, Bill
> Subject: RE: [Histonet] Practical Exam
>
> Rene, I can't and won't put words into Bill's mouth, especially since we
> have known each other for almost 30 years, but I think his question was, was
> there really a problem with  people turning in someone else's work as their
> own. Where are the facts that it even happen?
>
>
> Tom Podawiltz, HT (ASCP)
> Histology Section Head/Laboratory Safety Officer
> LRGHealthcare
> 603-524-3211 ext: 3220
> ________________________________________
> From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> [histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Rene J Buesa
> [rjbuesa <@t> yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:36 PM
> To: Histonet; O'Donnell, Bill
> Subject: RE: [Histonet] Practical Exam
>
> Bill:
> In my time when you accepted somebody else doing YOUR job and YOU being
> remunerated or accredited for it was called CHEATING and that is a moral
> turpitude issue, and really a problem, not as you say that was "not much of
> a problem"!.
> René J.
>
> --- On Fri, 2/20/09, O'Donnell, Bill <billodonnell <@t> catholichealth.net>
> wrote:
>
> From: O'Donnell, Bill <billodonnell <@t> catholichealth.net>
> Subject: RE: [Histonet] Practical Exam
> To: "Histonet" <Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>
> Date: Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:00 AM
>
> If, indeed, these were the two primary reasons for eliminating the practical
> exam, they are weak and lazy reasons. An increase in the fee to apply would
> cover costs, and, well, was it really that much of a problem of people doing
> other peoples practicals.
>
> I can't imagine it to be out of proportion to what might (I emphasize
> "might" and add "but likely did not") have occurred
> sporadically in all the years prior.
>
> I won't pass judgement on a single source, but would love to hear from
> someone who was a part of the decision process that eliminated this
> practicum.
>
> However, if it is true, my estimation of the ASCP has grossly deteriorated.
>
> William (Bill) O'Donnell, HT (ASCP) QIHC
> Lead Histologist
> Good Samaritan Hospital
> 10 East 31st Street
> Kearney, NE 68847
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> [mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Rene J Buesa
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 8:01 AM
> To: Victor Tobias; Histonet; Rittman, Barry R
> Subject: RE: [Histonet] Practical Exam
>
> There were 2 fundamental reasons why ASCP eliminated the practical part of
> the
> examination:
> 1- they got to the conclusion that there was no way to determine if the
> person
> sending the slides was the one who really made them, and
> 2- it was getting too costly to send the slides to review or to gather the
> reviewers to qualify the sections, so they decided to eliminate the
> practical
> and made the changes we have now (renewal and CEU).
> René J.
>
> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Rittman, Barry R <Barry.R.Rittman <@t> uth.tmc.edu>
> wrote:
>
> From: Rittman, Barry R <Barry.R.Rittman <@t> uth.tmc.edu>
> Subject: RE: [Histonet] Practical Exam
> To: "Victor Tobias" <victor <@t> pathology.washington.edu>,
> "Histonet" <Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>
> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 6:30 PM
>
> Victor
> I cannot believe that you have said this.
> Although I did not think that the practical examination was the ultimate
> test
> of skill ,  it did at least provide some uniformity.
> With an extension of the logic that you use it is just as easy to allow the
> pathologist to certify that the technician is qualified even without a
> written
> examination.
> Without a somewhat standardized practical there is no guarantee that the
> technician will have any practical knowledge outside their individual
> laboratory.
> Didactic without adequate practical knowledge is, as far as I am concerned,
> useless.
> What is really needed is a national standardized written and practical test
> that is administered by NSH.
> I am not holding my breath that this will happen.
> Barry
>
> ________________________________________
> From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> [histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Victor Tobias
> [victor <@t> pathology.washington.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:03 PM
> To: Histonet
> Subject: [Histonet] Practical Exam
>
> There has been discussion regarding the removal of the practical exam.
> To me it has not been removed, but the responsibility has shifted to
> whomever
> signs off on the student. In the case of OJT, the pathologist has verified
> that
> this student can cut and stain. Of course what is acceptable to one
> pathologist
> may not be to another. Do they get tested in the art of troubleshooting.....
> As
> far as the schools go, they shouldn't be graduating anyone that can't
> cut, stain and troubleshoot.
> So I don't really see a problem with the absence of the practical. It is
> Friday somewhere.
>
> Victor
>
> --
> Victor Tobias
> Clinical Applications Analyst
> University of Washington Medical Center
> Dept of Pathology Room BB220
> 1959 NE Pacific
> Seattle, WA 98195
> victor <@t> pathology.washington.edu
> 206-598-2792
> 206-598-7659 Fax
> =================================================
> Privileged, confidential or patient identifiable information may be
> contained
> in this message. This information is meant only for the use of the intended
> recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, or if the message has
> been
> addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce, distribute,
> disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Instead, please notify the
> sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the message and any
> attachments.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
> THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL.  
> This e-mail message and any attachments are proprietary and confidential
> information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If
> you are not the intended recipient, you may not print,distribute, or copy
> this message or any attachments.  If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message and
> any attachments from your computer. Any views or opinions expressed are
> solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
> LRGHealthcare.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
>
>   