Leadership involves all the difficult situations that most people tend to avoid. However, as leaders it is our responsibility to take those difficult situations and turn them into constructive encounters. No one enjoys telling an employee that their performance is subpar but there are productive ways to have this discussion. A Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is one of the tools I use to identify the specific areas that an employee is struggling, identify the tools they need to improve, and give them a timeline to achieve success. It’s important note that these discussions do not have to be technical in nature. PIP’s are also used for behavioral issues such as conduct detrimental to work environment.
A Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is one of the tools I use to identify the specific areas that an employee is struggling, identify the tools they need to improve, and give them a timeline to achieve success.
I begin by identifying the job tasks that are not being performed at the expected level of competency. The key here is identifying specific job tasks that the employee can work on. For example, let’s say when John Doe works in Hematology, stat turnaround times aren’t met. When meeting with John, don’t say something like “you need to be better at hematology.” Instead, say “I need you to work on completing stat samples within the turnaround time. How can we make that happen?” Listing generalized deficiencies doesn’t give the employee a real sense of what they need to work on.
Second, clearly identify the expected improvement that the employee needs to achieve. Using our example above, we would tell John that we expect stat turnaround times for CBCs with differentials need to be less than 60 minutes when he is working in Hematology.
The last step is to determine a fair time frame to give the employee a fair chance to succeed. For our example we may monitor John’s stat CBC turnaround times for 30 days. At the end the PIP is evaluated to determine whether or not the employee has met their stated plan. If the answer is no, you need to have a serious discussion with the employee. You may find yourself asking him if he might be successful outside of your laboratory. As leaders we must be willing to have those tough conversations. In the long run, however, a 30 day performance improvement plan is much more efficient than three to six months of training a new employee.
A laboratory developed test (LDT) is any test that has been developed by an individual laboratory, often using instruments and/or reagents that have not been approved by the FDA for use as/in an in vitro diagnostic test. For example, measuring pH using a pH meter and pH calibrators from a scientific supply company is an LDT. So is performing a spun hematocrit, measuring acylcarnitines by tandem mass spectrometry, or performing newborn screening on dried blood spots. Even using an FDA-approved assay for samples or in a manner not specified by the manufacturer makes that assay an LDT. If you look around your lab, you may find that you’re performing an LDT without really thinking about it.
Who regulates these tests? The FDA regulates in vitro diagnostic testing, and LDTs fall under their purview. Until recently the FDA has used “enforcement discretion” and has essentially allowed CLIA regulations and CLIA oversight to ensure proper validation and monitoring of LDTs. CLIA regulation Subpart K, Section 493.1253 gives the specific parameters that must be properly validated in any non-FDA-approved assay. CLIA also regulates the proper usage and control of LDTs, just like any test performed in the laboratory. Is it necessary for LDTs to be regulated more highly than this?
In June of 2010 the FDA announced its intention of taking a more active role in LDT regulation in the future. They also held a public meeting to discuss their increased oversight. All laboratories which perform LDTs will do well to monitor developments in this newly intended enforcement of the FDA’s role, and keep abreast of changes coming out in the regulatory environment for these tests.
When a physician describes what they do they will often say, “I practice medicine.” The reason for this is because each patient, even if they are in similar disease states, usually requires a somewhat unique treatment regimen. The same can be said of leadership. We as leaders are constantly refining our leadership styles, and to a degree practicing what we learn and observe. Just like the patients, each employee we lead is slightly different and it is up to us to adjust to them and not vice-versa. I have been a leader for three short years but my leadership style has already gone through many changes and modifications as I learn and interact with my employees.
I have also been confronted with the challenge of the leader versus manager mentality. The natural tendency when an employee is struggling is to jump in and save the day. However, did you really help them? Perhaps the better approach is to discuss the problem with the employee, give them the tools they need, whether it be knowledge or physical items, and then observe the employee working out the problem themselves. This is the tightrope leaders walk, and it can sometimes feel like the most daunting of tasks.
I start this blog with the hopes of putting together the leadership puzzle by first analyzing the pieces and then taking a step back and viewing the big picture. I just finished my 6th year as a laboratory professional and celebrated by re-certifying with ASCP. I gain my experience through being a blood bank supervisor as well as a general supervisor in a mid-sized community hospital that is part of the larger conglomerate Cleveland Clinic. Working here has given me insight into the entire gambit of the lab as well as how we interact with the rest of the medical profession. I will often refer back to issues and how they relate “outside the four walls.” This is especially important to leadership and how we keep our employees engaged.