Proper Way to Train
26 followers
0 Likes
I'm old school in my understanding of training.
There is no right or wrong way to train and to be honest, I should ask my lab director this question but I wanted to hear from this group.
I'm training our anesthesiologists how to use the GEM 7000 which is usually in a group setting.
I created a powerpoint slide and then I have the anesthesiologist run samples and trouble shoot the device and then I sign them off.
I have limited time since the anesthesiologists usually have to run off to the OR.
One of the director suggested that I give the anesthesiologists the slides ahead of time, have them review it and just jump into the hands-on training.
I don't know why, but this doesn't sit right with me.
My standard approach has always been to deliver a lecture or presentation followed by hands-on training. If the lecture component is omitted, there is no assurance that participants have reviewed or fully understood the material. While the GEM analyzers are straightforward - I can demonstrate operation in approximately 2 minutes and basic troubleshooting in 5 - the presentation covers all SOP-required elements, including the test’s purpose, proper operation, collection, troubleshooting, limitations, and pre-analytical errors etc.
If I skip the lecture and assume they read through it, they will just drop in, run a test or two, do the quiz and leave. This would take maybe 10 minutes.
Would you call this training?
Is that appropriate? Is my thinking wrong?
There is no right or wrong way to train and to be honest, I should ask my lab director this question but I wanted to hear from this group.
I'm training our anesthesiologists how to use the GEM 7000 which is usually in a group setting.
I created a powerpoint slide and then I have the anesthesiologist run samples and trouble shoot the device and then I sign them off.
I have limited time since the anesthesiologists usually have to run off to the OR.
One of the director suggested that I give the anesthesiologists the slides ahead of time, have them review it and just jump into the hands-on training.
I don't know why, but this doesn't sit right with me.
My standard approach has always been to deliver a lecture or presentation followed by hands-on training. If the lecture component is omitted, there is no assurance that participants have reviewed or fully understood the material. While the GEM analyzers are straightforward - I can demonstrate operation in approximately 2 minutes and basic troubleshooting in 5 - the presentation covers all SOP-required elements, including the test’s purpose, proper operation, collection, troubleshooting, limitations, and pre-analytical errors etc.
If I skip the lecture and assume they read through it, they will just drop in, run a test or two, do the quiz and leave. This would take maybe 10 minutes.
Would you call this training?
Is that appropriate? Is my thinking wrong?
7 Replies
Reply
Subgroup Membership is required to post Replies
Join POCT Listserv now
Suggested Posts
| Topic | Replies | Likes | Views | Participants | Last Reply |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recording Ambient Temperatures | 2 | 0 | 120 | ||
| Glucose QC Question | 0 | 0 | 164 | ||
| LeadCare II Collection & Transport | 0 | 0 | 142 |
I, too, train anesthesiologists to perform blood gas and while I structure their training to "meet them where they are" (i.e., having very limited time and anxious to return to patient duties), I do not skip the explanatory material/lecture but I dedicate fully to keeping it as brief as possible and sticking to points that matter most to them, like the relationship of good testing to better patient outcomes. I take a bit more time to do initial training with new hires, but for annual renewal/competency, it is probably a 5-10 minute run down (probably closer to 5), having them run a sample/QC and do the written exam, which adds another 5" maybe. I would not permit omitting even the brief lecture. Your hunch is absolutely right; the option to review the material/slides ahead of time translates to they would very likely not review them at all and just do the minimum of meeting with you to perform the tasks. I would not opt for them to review slides in your presence however, I don't think many would do that. I would simply deliver the material verbally, albeit succinctly.
If they would be responsible for et al...then they get trained on et al. How you relay it to them may differ. In the end you need to ensure that you gave them the information and that it was appropriate for them to test patients. It would also be prudent to think about what comes next. Would what you give them today be enough for them to pass competency with the 6 elements? Cutting corners now could be risky to both patient care and compliance.
I agree with James. Do not omit the PP slides. Maybe allow them opportunity to review the slides before the training but still go through the lecture. I am sure they did not rush through med school.
I was hesitant at first, they had a cranky reputation but turned out they had similar issues we have in the lab and were grateful for someone to listen to their needs and help them deliver great quality patient care and improve their workflow. Point of Care has been very rewarding-- bringing the village together for the common good.