<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Power Sign-Out</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pathtalk.org/archives/37/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pathtalk.org/archives/37</link>
	<description>is a weblog about pathology and laboratory medicine.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:23:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: KCShaw</title>
		<link>http://pathtalk.org/archives/37/comment-page-1#comment-22</link>
		<dc:creator>KCShaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:20:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pathtalk.org/archives/37#comment-22</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure that adding an assistant and reducing distractions are surprising methods for improving efficiency, although it&#039;s nice to see that someone is actually -doing- it. What I&#039;d really like to see is whether this would -work- in an academic setting with residents involved, as academic turnaround times already (by my impression) tend to lag. We have &quot;protected&quot; lecture time, why not &quot;protected&quot; sign-out time?

The case &quot;point&quot; system seems to be a new fad, but I think brings problems along with promise. Among these are that different pathologists are going to weigh different cases/specimens differently. A locally derived point system runs the risk of 9 pathologists with no interest or extra expertise in, say, placental pathology sets a low value for placental cases, while 1 placental pathologist spends more time &amp; effort. In a practice that brings in the point system to address internal disagreements regarding who&#039;s doing more/less work, but then assigns those points itself based on its own pre-existing biases, superficially it does not appear to fill its intended function. A point system derived by national organizations partly addresses this, but, obviously, fails to address issues specific to a given individual practice. In a a practice with complete internal agreement, using it as an accounting method for streamlining does make sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure that adding an assistant and reducing distractions are surprising methods for improving efficiency, although it&#8217;s nice to see that someone is actually -doing- it. What I&#8217;d really like to see is whether this would -work- in an academic setting with residents involved, as academic turnaround times already (by my impression) tend to lag. We have &#8220;protected&#8221; lecture time, why not &#8220;protected&#8221; sign-out time?</p>
<p>The case &#8220;point&#8221; system seems to be a new fad, but I think brings problems along with promise. Among these are that different pathologists are going to weigh different cases/specimens differently. A locally derived point system runs the risk of 9 pathologists with no interest or extra expertise in, say, placental pathology sets a low value for placental cases, while 1 placental pathologist spends more time &amp; effort. In a practice that brings in the point system to address internal disagreements regarding who&#8217;s doing more/less work, but then assigns those points itself based on its own pre-existing biases, superficially it does not appear to fill its intended function. A point system derived by national organizations partly addresses this, but, obviously, fails to address issues specific to a given individual practice. In a a practice with complete internal agreement, using it as an accounting method for streamlining does make sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

