MT. MLT, MLA: what they are allowed/not allowed to do.

Please state the scope of practice & limitations of MTs, MLTs and MLAs in your area of the country.

I'm constantly seeing posts about how MLTs can't release results. That is not the case in my area. I've also seen were MLTs were not allowed to read plates in microbiology. In my area (Alabama) it all depends on the lab/hospital. I know in my lab MLTs are taught how to read plates. At some hospital labs they are not allowed to read plates.

Many labs in South are now utilizing lab assistants more. New grads that start here are shocked to find out that lab assistants are allowed to make thinprep slides.

Here in mty part of the mid south...Medical technologists and technicians work side by side.The only difference seesm to be technicians make less mnoney and can't be supervisors.
Technicians can and do release results just like the technologists.

Pathologists and chief techs/lab directors set a lot of the rules associated with what the technicians can and cannot do.
There don't seem to be any state licensing board rules limiting it other than the those associated with being a supervisor.

New York City - The only difference between a technician and a technologist is the title on their ID. Technicians release results like any other technologist. Mind you, most of these technicians have been pseudo-grandfathered. There are no NEW technicians coming into the field because NYC has been phasing out the 2-year degree.

This is becoming an age old debate. Their is a clear distinction between a medical technologist/medical laboratory scientist and a medical laboratory technician in terms of the level of job responsibility and required education. Other differences do exist according to location and by who is asked. For example, in many states that require licensure, like California, MLTs are not allowed to release/report results since there is no license available at their level. In these areas, MLTs are basically assistants.

Responsibilities also vary by department. In most heavily automated labs like hospital chemistry and hematology labs, or core labs, MTs and MLTs share a great deal of the testing volume since most of the analysis is performed by an instrument, whereas areas like Microbiology and Blood Bank separate the responsibilities of MTs and MLTs because of the complex nature of some of the manual methods used.

The quality and accuracy of some analyses are dependent on the experience, skill, and knowledge level of the laboratorian. This is why any reputable lab will follow the general rule of thumb that testing placed by CLIA into the "high complexity" category should be performed by an MT/MLS. These tests include bacterial, fungal, acid-fast, and viral culture reading, RBC antibody ID, reference BB testing, HLA typing, electrophoresis, HPLC, and abnormal leukocyte identification among others. There should always be, at minimum, a majority of MTs in the these areas.

Continued next post...

...

I find that MLTs often disagree with this and sometimes even find the restrictions insulting. MLTs that are insulted or disgruntled about any separation of job duties and/or advancement opportunities should consider going back to school for their MT/MLS. The standard of field entry for MTs is simply higher, they have more background and education in the field and as a result are better equipped to supervise and manage laboratory testing. This isn't to say that MLTs are any less capable, but rather they haven't gone through the same channels.

An MT must have at least a BS degree and complete a very rigorous one year clinical internship. Since at least half of MTs now complete the 30 credit hour internship post-baccalaureate, it can be said that the average MT has between 4 and 5 years of education in the biomedical sciences (between 130 and 160 credit hours) while MLTs complete a two years associates degree (60 credit hours). This means MTs are going to have, on average, twice as much background in the clinical laboratory sciences. In addition, they also complete many more 3000 and 4000 level college courses that stimulate and develop the critical thinking skills that serve them well in the laboratory.

Continued next post...

...

I, personally, took the “4+1” route to my MT (BS degree followed by the internship) and I think a lot of people who haven’t experienced medical technology school greatly underestimate it. Even though it is just a year in length, it is the equivalent of 2 years in a standard undergraduate program in terms of the volume of material covered. After one year’s time my notes alone (not including books) stacked from the floor to my waist (about 3 feet) and my eyes have seen every page at least once. For that year, I did almost nothing but study, take exams (153 in total), eat, drink, and sleep. I don’t see how even a year in medical school could be any tougher. And, I can’t imagine trying to develop the same background and expertise on-the-job without MT school.

First off Joe, GREAT POST.

The main reason for all this confusion was the CREATION of the MLT. If all the states ran the lab like California, there would be great interest in the CLS field.

California runs their labs like most pharmacies across the country. There is ONE pharmacist to verify scrips, and the rest are assistants to count pills and help compound.

That is the way California runs their labs, they have assistants to run the test, but CLSs to verify results. There is no confusion about job duties or a lesser degree thinking they can do your job.

The problem is like others have posted on here, we do not control out own profession. The pathologist do. They will do anything to lower cost to put more money in their pockets.

Glen Mcdonald is a MT and writer for advance magazine.

Here is one of his posts:

You have identified 3 big factors that would increase status and recognition- standard nomenclature, licensure and autonomy of the profession. Many of the challenges the profession face are related to various names/certifications resulting in confusion and a blurred scope of practice, no legal requirement that only certified/licensed professionals be hired to practice the profession; and control of the profession by pathologists.

What can we do in our own workplaces to correct those ills? It seems like a daunting task. But do we inform HR of the difference between an MT and an MLT? Do we assign the same level of responsibility to both in the laboratory? Do we hire non-certified personnel and pay them less in order to save money?

Do we refer every question to the pathologist as if we cant think for our selves? Do we let wrong or outdated information be passed on by pathologists simply because they are physicians?

Do we fight licensure efforts in our state because we think it will cost a few more dollars per year, disregarding the fact that it will protect our scope, increase our value and protect patients?

Do we discourage bright young minds from entering a "deadend and dying profession"? Do we discourage activism?

Some of these questions are rhetorical, I know. But they need to be comtemplated and I think a critical mass is created by one person being willing to start the ball rolling right where they are.

I have often felt lonely; I have felt disappointed by the lack of support for my activism. But I have never regretted it; and many times I have been pleasantly surprised by the response.

Glen McDaniel

I completely agree with Joe and Helmer minus one notion. You see, I am on the verge of starting my year long internship...provided I out compete my colleagues and gain entry. But after that year, after taking and passing my boards, I will have officially completed 6 academic years of collegiate standing education. 4 years for BS Microbiology, and 2 year Post-Bacc Program which includes the 1 year internship requirement. So, if MLS's are paid more, given more responsibility, verify results, and hold some higher level of reverence within laboratory circles, I believe it is because it was EARNED. And one day, when my title as "hopeful" is replaced with MLS(ASCP) and compounded with a couple years of credible work experience, I would expect to bear the fruits of all I have earned.

...continued on next post...

Now, with Helmer's comment, it is true, the confusion lies with the fact that the MLT profession was created to offset the current scarcity if not already depleted MLS workforce due to the baby boomer generation skipping off to retirement. But, regardless, I am OK with the fact that MLTs do exist and do hold their Associates degrees tied to their professional titles. The fact is, MLSs need the help. And I do not think that they will be arrogant enough to refuse it.

All MLSs ask for is that ALL STATES that stand united within THIS nation unify and agree upon the separation of the educational requirements of attaining the MLS title, the responsibilities and duties that accompany that title, and the monetary rewards that is deserved of that title.

MLTs and MLSs should work together. Side by side. But lets face facts, education in this generation is one of the last great testaments we have left of this country. As much as it would be taboo for an MLS to start acting like a Pathologist without a doctorate, an MLT having the same responsibilities as an MLS should also be likewise considered. If there are any gripes about this, MLTs should go back to school and obtain their MLS degree.

For instance, lets take Nursing. LVNs are paid a lot less than RNs. Why? Because the academic routes are significantly different. At Kaiser Permanente Hospitals here in Southern CA, at least the ones I have observed, RNs are also distinguished differently amongst themselves. For instance, on their ID Badges, you either have an "RN" title OR an "RN BSN" title after your name. Why? Because now, there is a plethora of Associate Degree Nursing Programs birthing Registered Nurses. So after speaking to and questioning a few, they told me that those with the "RN BSN" while they do the exact same thing as "RN" holding individuals, are paid more and are eligible to climb up the totem pole available to Nurses. This shows me that while I have this inherent yet explainable frustration with the Nursing Profession (but that is another story found on another thread I created recently), at the very least, it shows that Nursing and the powers that be recognize and value the differences that set them apart.

...next post...

THe way I see it is this: Certified Nurse Assistants (CNA); Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN/LPN); RN; RN BSN; Nurse Practioner (NP).

In that order.

Now for Laboratory Circles:

MLA (Medical Laboratory Assistants); Medical Laboratory Technicians (MLT); Medical Laboratory Scientists (MLS); DMLS (same as previous but with a doctorate - this is starting to pop up in numerous states); MD (Pathologist)

In THAT order. Pay goes up with each level. Responsibilities and titles and licensure is increased with each level. Because obviously, educational and academic achievement is longer and more rigorous with each level.

"The End."

p.s. HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!!!!

I heard a per diem CLS at UCLA medical center in Santa Monica now gets paid $51 an hr base pay. WTF??!!

I think I might need to switch my per diem job...

As CLS-hopeful said, higher education should mean higher pay.

Happy NewYear everyone!!!

It would be nice to see some consistancy in this field, along with licensure in every state.

Helmer in Cedar Hill, Texas said:
California runs their labs like most pharmacies across the country. There is ONE pharmacist to verify scrips, and the rest are assistants to count pills and help compound.

That is the way California runs their labs, they have assistants to run the test, but CLSs to verify results. There is no confusion about job duties or a lesser degree thinking they can do your job.

The problem is like others have posted on here, we do not control out own profession. The pathologist do. They will do anything to lower cost to put more money in their pockets.

This is not correct. MLTs can result waived and moderately complex tests in California as of 2007. Unlicensed lab assistants are very limited in what they can do and cannot perform any work that involves independent judgement.

smiley in San Jose, California said: This is not correct. MLTs can result waived and moderately complex tests in California as of 2007. Unlicensed lab assistants are very limited in what they can do and cannot perform any work that involves independent judgement.

Maybe but I haven't seen any MLTs releasing results in labs in southern CA yet. Does your facility have MLTs that release results?

Here in Oklahoma, I work for a Quest subsidiary. In this company, there is no distinction made between MT and MLT as far as actual tech work goes. Both release results, read plates, run the same tests, troubleshoot the same instruments, etc... The pay may be a bit different (and before anyone can say it, rightfully so), but the responsibilities are exactly the same. One of the lab supervisors at the lab that I work at is even an MLT, albeit with a Masters in chemistry.

That's Oklahoma chiming in.

Rus the point is a physical therapist can teach a physical therapy aide to do their job, but there are laws in place so you need a specific degree, thus higher standards an more pay.

Most jobs a lower degree can do, but the fact that standards are in place, you canno get away with a lower degree doing the same job, even though it is possible.

Rus in Chickasha, Oklahoma said: Here in Oklahoma, I work for a Quest subsidiary. In this company, there is no distinction made between MT and MLT as far as actual tech work goes. Both release results, read plates, run the same tests, troubleshoot the same instruments, etc... The pay may be a bit different (and before anyone can say it, rightfully so), but the responsibilities are exactly the same. One of the lab supervisors at the lab that I work at is even an MLT, albeit with a Masters in chemistry.

That's Oklahoma chiming in.

Interesting. In California, Quest just has CLS and lab aide. There is no MLT distinction.

At my lab, the lab assistants release the BacT results if they are negative. If they are positive we set up the plates & slides and a tech releases those results.

The lab assistants here in the micro lab do all the plating (including mycology), hoodwork, run the Vitek, Microscan, & BacT machines. I know in other labs that don't have MLAa the MLTs do all of this work.

C. Agar, we have been talking about this for a while. Lack of standards = lower pay = no interest in the field.

Schools closing down, people getting out of the field, hence this field forever being a stepping stone to fields with standards ( pharmacy, physical therapy, OT).

At what point did this thread stop being an informational thread and revert to the typical MLT-bashing? Oh yeah.....that never ends. This entire forum is devoted to the bashing of MLTs. Let's bash MLTs, everybody! MLT-bashing is fun for the whole family! MLT-bashing; now in convenient Super-Family-Size! MLT-bashing will remove grass stains from your whites! MLT-bashing will change the subject of any thread to promote hatred and bigoted misunderstanding! Wooooo-hooooo! Go out and bash an MLT today or you hate God, apple pie, and America! The NRA promotes MLT-bashing, why don't you? All MLTs are pinko Communist/Islamic terrorists! MLTs: the real reason behind the economic meltdown, news at eleven! The drug wars in Mexico; caused by foaming-at-the-mouth MLTs-next on Larry King Live! Global warming; caused by hot air in the heads of MLTs or a result of the worldwide MLT standards-lowering conspiracy?

Good Lord, people. Don't you realize how ridiculous you all sound? You should have a newspaper that advertises in the back of Today's Mercenary or the National Enquirer.

Rus

Talk to any MD and ask them how they feel about certain states given nurse practioners full autonomy.

MD go to school 12 years minimum with thousands of hours of clinicals

NP go to school 7 years. Yet in some states they are considered EQUAL family practioners???

This is the reason why people get upset, lower degrees thinking they are equal.

Rus go to any MD forum and you will see th hatred for NPs. Thus the dislike for MLTs.

Rus in Chickasha, Oklahoma said: At what point did this thread stop being an informational thread and revert to the typical MLT-bashing? Oh yeah.....that never ends. This entire forum is devoted to the bashing of MLTs. Let's bash MLTs, everybody! MLT-bashing is fun for the whole family! MLT-bashing; now in convenient Super-Family-Size! MLT-bashing will remove grass stains from your whites! MLT-bashing will change the subject of any thread to promote hatred and bigoted misunderstanding! Wooooo-hooooo! Go out and bash an MLT today or you hate God, apple pie, and America! The NRA promotes MLT-bashing, why don't you? All MLTs are pinko Communist/Islamic terrorists! MLTs: the real reason behind the economic meltdown, news at eleven! The drug wars in Mexico; caused by foaming-at-the-mouth MLTs-next on Larry King Live! Global warming; caused by hot air in the heads of MLTs or a result of the worldwide MLT standards-lowering conspiracy?

LOL nice rant. It's not so much as MLT bashing. What bothers me is when MLTs post how they can do everything a CLS does including being supervisors. I don't think it should be this way. There is a reason a CLS has more education.

I'll be honest. I see the MLT in CA as a threat to job security and a higher pay for CLSs in CA. If MLTs were given the same power as they are in other states, then they would be a major threat. However, CA which has just introduced them in the past 2 years, does not let them do microscopy or blood bank. This severely limits what they can do and their usefulness in the laboratory. As a result, I'm not that worried, but I certainly believe that is all they should be allowed to do.

As other people have said, this set of standards and clearly defined areas of practice are the reason CA CLSs are the highest paid in the country.

MLT's are equal and that's why companies hire them...MLT
s are qualified to do and release CLIA88 moderate complexity tests...most tests now run in a standard lab are low complexity tests with a few moderates... and "if" you hire MLT's pay them equal pay for equal work or be classified as discriminatory.

You can't buy respect nor earn it with BS. It must be given.

Lol companies hire them bc they are cheap labor.

If companies can hire someone off the streets rather than being educated they would, it's called increasing their profit margin!

So you can start your lawsuit with the pharmacy techs and physical therpay aides bc they do everything and do not get paid like the higher degree, the higher degree just oversees what they are doing and verify scripts and exercises.

Why is it that MLTs get so aggravated and all worked up when the topic of conversation circulates around what they can or cannot do, what level of education they have attained, or how they are compared to someone who is an Medical Laboratory Scientist?

All of a sudden, they feel like they are being "bashed" or "discriminated" or "insulted". OK I admit, some CLSs do say some intentionally patronizing things when they discuss differences between professions. But if everyone just put that aside, DO MLTs REALLY BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD EQUAL CLSs IN EVERY ASPECT? Do they really believe that MLTs should receive the same pay, do the exact same work, or even change ALL bylaws that indicate ANY distinction between the two??

If that is the case, then that is very sad. I mean, we are in a country where many public school districts have trouble encouraging kids to graduate high school let alone attend a 4 year university. Out of the 30 "industrialized" countries in this world, our country is 25th in education!!! And we are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for crying out loud!

...continued next post...

My point is that if MLTs have it their way, and no distinction in responsibilities, salary, and recognition is set in place in EVERY SINGLE STATE, then whatever future "CLS-HOPEFULES" like myself will start to wonder..."what for?" "Why spend 6 years getting a BS Microbiology degree and 2 year Post Bacc in CLinical Science...if I can take 2 years Associates degree and make the same amount of money and do the exact same thing???" "What for?" WHERE IS THE INCENTIVE?

This is why there is a shortage of CLS in the first place.

Imagine...imagine a world where PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS are allowed to do the EXACT SAME THING, GET PAID THE EXACT SAME THING, AND ARE RECOGNIZED NATIONALLY TO THE EXACT SAME THING AS AN MEDICAL DOCTOR. So you can just do a 6 year education getting your BS then MS degree and be a PA-C, or you can do 12-15 total years to get your MD. BUT HERE IS THE RUB: NO DISTINCTION between the two.

ANYONE WANT TO GO TO MEDICAL SCHOOL NOW???? I DIDN'T THINK SO.

CLSs do not mean to "BASH" ON MLTs, all they...and hopefully soon...."we" ask is that ALL STATES recognize our degrees and license and compensate and bestow us a sense of deference for the time and stress it took to attain those "merit badges."

IS that too much to ask??

WE DO NOT CONTROL OUT OWN PROFESSION, THE PATHOLOGISTS DO. THEY CREATED THE MLT FOR THE SHORTAGE. SINCE THERE IS NO INTEREST TO GO INTO THE FIELD THE ASSOCIATE DEGREES ARE LEFT THINKING THEY CAN DO EVERYTHING.

IF WE CONTROLLED OUR OWN FIELD, WE WOULD HAVE OUR OWN LICENSING EXAMS, AND OUR OWN BOARD OF MEMBERS THAT WOULD DICTATE WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE FOR THE FIELD.

CLS-HOPEFUL in Glendale, California said: "Why spend 6 years getting a BS Microbiology degree and 2 year Post Bacc in CLinical Science...if I can take 2 years Associates degree and make the same amount of money and do the exact same thing???"

You're spending 8 years to become a CLS with 6 years for your bachelors? That is quite a bit. I took 4 years getting my bio degree and 2 years my CLS degree, and I think that's too much. More education though should mean better pay.

CLSHopeful, I am glad you think the way you do. Because when you get out of school and start practicing as a CLS here in CA, the field may start changing. Know that the MLT is a threat to both CLS job security and pay. Since MLTs are limited in what they can do in CA, for the past 2 years, no one has hired them. Let's hope it stays like that.

If MLTs are eventually allowed the same powers as a CLS in the lab, meaning to do microscopic work and blood bank, then employers will no doubtedly hire them for cheaper labor, and the number of CLS spots will diminish. Since CLS is my career, I worry about this and hope this doesn't happen.

My goal as of now is to get much experience in all departments in the lab as a generalist. That way if MLTs do gain acceptance and power in CA, I will be marketable enough to move jobs as I please if I ever have to.

Usnom BS MT ASCP CLS NCA in Athens, Georgia said: WE DO NOT CONTROL OUT OWN PROFESSION, THE PATHOLOGISTS DO. THEY CREATED THE MLT FOR THE SHORTAGE. SINCE THERE IS NO INTEREST TO GO INTO THE FIELD THE ASSOCIATE DEGREES ARE LEFT THINKING THEY CAN DO EVERYTHING.

IF WE CONTROLLED OUR OWN FIELD, WE WOULD HAVE OUR OWN LICENSING EXAMS, AND OUR OWN BOARD OF MEMBERS THAT WOULD DICTATE WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE FOR THE FIELD.

This is exactly why the NCA was created and the Pathologist owned ASCP bought the organization...go figure.

CLS48 in California said: You're spending 8 years to become a CLS with 6 years for your bachelors? That is quite a bit. I took 4 years getting my bio degree and 2 years my CLS degree, and I think that's too much. More education though should mean better pay. CLSHopeful, I am glad you think the way you do. Because when you get out of school and start practicing as a CLS here in CA, the field may start changing. Know that the MLT is a threat to both CLS job security and pay. Since MLTs are limited in what they can do in CA, for the past 2 years, no one has hired them. Let's hope it stays like that.

If MLTs are eventually allowed the same powers as a CLS in the lab, meaning to do microscopic work and blood bank, then employers will no doubtedly hire them for cheaper labor, and the number of CLS spots will diminish. Since CLS is my career, I worry about this and hope this doesn't happen.

My goal as of now is to get much experience in all departments in the lab as a generalist. That way if MLTs do gain acceptance and power in CA, I will be marketable enough to move jobs as I please if I ever have to.

These are the comments that were spewed out over 30 years ago when the MLT program was started. MLT's are not changing anything just giving you guys a reason to feel superior and special. I've never seen a profession that needed more ego stroking or maybe it's just a bunch of kids that played soccer and didn't have teams that won. Everyone now just plays and everyone gets a trophy...if you play by set rules.

Yea Larry if I can can be a Nurse practictioner and ge paid like a MD without all those extra years of training, I would be supporting my field and think the MD are bunch of babies.

CLS48 in California said: You're spending 8 years to become a CLS with 6 years for your bachelors? That is quite a bit. I took 4 years getting my bio degree and 2 years my CLS degree, and I think that's too much. More education though should mean better pay. CLSHopeful, I am glad you think the way you do. Because when you get out of school and start practicing as a CLS here in CA, the field may start changing. Know that the MLT is a threat to both CLS job security and pay. Since MLTs are limited in what they can do in CA, for the past 2 years, no one has hired them. Let's hope it stays like that.

If MLTs are eventually allowed the same powers as a CLS in the lab, meaning to do microscopic work and blood bank, then employers will no doubtedly hire them for cheaper labor, and the number of CLS spots will diminish. Since CLS is my career, I worry about this and hope this doesn't happen.

My goal as of now is to get much experience in all departments in the lab as a generalist. That way if MLTs do gain acceptance and power in CA, I will be marketable enough to move jobs as I please if I ever have to.

Haha. Sorry, I meant that I am currently taking 6 years total in completing my current academic goals. 4 years at UC Riverside for my BS Microbiology, and my current 2 years of Post Bacch at CSUDH to be a CLS. Eventually, I am looking forward to finishing this, obtaining a few years of experience myself in every department, and hopefully get my "SM". After, I do intend on getting my MHA degree.

By the way CLS48, I am currently also getting my CPT license. I figured, if I will be supervising Lab Assistants/CPTs and since it is part of the scope of CLS practice, it couldnt hurt. Anyway, I talked to my CPT instructor who works for Kaiser part time, and she said she went ahead and explored Kaiser job opportunities for the lab, and she said that she was shocked to find that Kaiser is re-enacting the hiring of MLTs by the masses. Interesting...

Larry, presence of MLTs HAVE and ARE changing things. That is fact. MLTs were created to offset the shortage of CLSs. That is fine. No problem here. In fact, for as long as CLSs are not disavowed by the laboratory community, I couldnt care less.

My issue, and I am certain that other CLSs might also agree, is that I hope that MLT duties, responsibilities, and pay are greatly regulated and kept DISTINCT from the CLS.

If MLTs realize that CLSs make more money, are given more responsibilities, and are more recognized, wouldn't that ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE experienced MLTs to aspire to attain that title as well? Wouldn't that encourage MLTs who love what they do raise their own standards of their own academic accomplishments? Wouldn't MLTs who have a strong sense of "self actualization" or are inherently ambitious be more prone to use their MLT/Associates degree as a stepping stone to obtain their BS/MS/CLS degrees? And eventually, once regulation is set in every state, the popularity of the CLS profession will be rekindled. Given time, this shortage will cease to exist.

Is that so bad? Is it so bad to keep the distinction VIVID AND CLEAR?

CLS-HOPEFUL in Glendale, California said: Anyway, I talked to my CPT instructor who works for Kaiser part time, and she said she went ahead and explored Kaiser job opportunities for the lab, and she said that she was shocked to find that Kaiser is re-enacting the hiring of MLTs by the masses. Interesting...

I see. You actually don't need to get a phlebotomy license. As a CLS, you should have received education in it and your CLS license gives you the right to do phlebotomy so it's unnecessary to take that pleb licensing test.

I'm not surprised if Kaiser is trying to hire MLTs over CLSs. The reason is they pay really high for their CLSs. I heard the rate is now $34 to to $50 here in southern CA. Plus they give $4 differential pm shift and $6 differential graveyard. Their per diem rate is $40+ an hour. One of my coworkers also works at Kaider making $55 an hour on a graveyard with 24 years of experience.

Since they have a CLS union, this allows their pay to go up high. However, it would make sense financially to hire a bunch of MLTs to offset this CLS pay.

CLS-HOPEFUL in Glendale, California said: Why is it that MLTs get so aggravated and all worked up when the topic of conversation circulates around what they can or cannot do, what level of education they have attained, or how they are compared to someone who is an Medical Laboratory Scientist?

All of a sudden, they feel like they are being "bashed" or "discriminated" or "insulted". OK I admit, some CLSs do say some intentionally patronizing things when they discuss differences between professions. But if everyone just put that aside, DO MLTs REALLY BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD EQUAL CLSs IN EVERY ASPECT? Do they really believe that MLTs should receive the same pay, do the exact same work, or even change ALL bylaws that indicate ANY distinction between the two??QUOTE]

1) I get aggravated because every discussion in this forum turns into this discussion. I think that is un-professional and just generally rude. I and every other MLT that has seen this forum gets it; there are a few MTs here that really don't dig us. We get it, we really do. There is just no need to sabotage every single thread here to get that point across.

2) No, I don't think that I should earn the same amount *right out of school* that someone with a Bachelor's should earn. I agree with you there. Did you read that? I agree with you there.

I was a MLT for 4 years and have worked with many MT's. Not much difference than pay. I know many MLT's that are right up there with MT's. It depends on the tech, some do not belong in the Lab, and others born for it. Myself I was a MLT just out of school and working circles around the MT's, just depends on the person. Now that I have completed my MT (CLS) online, I don't anymore than I did. I had a very good MLT school and that is what I think makes the difference.

My hospital (in Southern California) sees no distinction between on-the-job trained lab assistants and the MLT. There simply is no distinction, you are either a CLS or you are not. The lab assistants are usually promoted Phlebotomists that are trained to do all the 'grunt' work: calibrating the analyzers, spinning and aliquotting specimens, running urine DOA's and streaking agar plates and doing occult bloods. They are not allowed in Blood Bank and cannot result anything.
There are over 40 CLS's that work here and only 8 lab assistants, none of which are MLT's. We make about half what the CLS's make, and deservedly so-if we want to be Techs than we have to go to college, period.
I will say this though: Our laboratory is fully automated-the chemistry analyzers load themselves directly from the centrifuge-and that with the increasing technological advances being made in this field that it is probable that in the near future you WILL have labs being run in majority by MLT's with one or two CLS overseers, instead of a shift with 4-6 CLS and 1-2 lab assistants. I don't think you can lay the blame solely on the MLT for the decision of the hospital corporation to go this route to save money.

ArtStick in Anaheim, California said:
I will say this though: Our laboratory is fully automated-the chemistry analyzers load themselves directly from the centrifuge-and that with the increasing technological advances being made in this field that it is probable that in the near future you WILL have labs being run in majority by MLT's with one or two CLS overseers, instead of a shift with 4-6 CLS and 1-2 lab assistants. I don't think you can lay the blame solely on the MLT for the decision of the hospital corporation to go this route to save money.

I doubt this will happen. MLTs cannot do micro, blood bank, or microscopic work in CA. That is the CA law and leaves the CA MLT limited, even if they can release results. As such, they won't be able to even do UA microscopic analysis or diffs in hematology. The most they can work in is chemistry, but even with that, autoverification is taking over and there won't be a need for too many CLSs or MLTs there.

It would make more sense to hire 1 or 2 CLSs that can do everything, and a bunch of lab assistants to help out. The reason is lab assistants get paid $16 an hr whereas the projected pay of the MLT is $22 to $26 an hr. What would be the point of hiring the MLT, an overpaid lab assistant, who can't work in blood bank, micro, or hematology. It doesn't make financial sense. CA hospitals and reference labs will stick with the CLS, but hire less of them and more of lab assistants.

This is parallel to how hospitals are now only hiring RNs and not LVNs anymore. LVNs are limited and can only do so much so they're sticking with the RNs.

Hi everyone,

The current issues regarding MLS vs MLT scopes of practice is being addressed by our professional societies. I recommend that everyone visit www.ascls.org and find the position paper on 'Scope of Practice' that was recently released. It was a collaborative effort between several groups. Promoting this type of model allows for an understanding of roles and eases the tension between the groups.

community.advanceweb.com/blogs/mt_2/archive/2010/04/14/national-medical-laboratory-professionals-week-2010.aspx

This is an old issue MT/CLS/MLS versus CLT/MLT. The reality is that MLTs often do NOT KNOW know what they dont know. Many of them have great work ethic and are wonderful people. In some situations they do the same tasks. But they dont have the critical thinking skills that MLSs do. Period.

The same thing happens with LPNs and RNs. In many states LPNs cannot start IVs, give IV drugs, some cardiac drugs, cannot work in the ICU (where quick decision making is required) Many times their RN colleagues will agree some LPNs are exceptional. But they are NOT RNs. It is a matter of education and critical thinking skills. Period!

For God's sake Aquarius 34! You had to be taught critical thinking? If I were to obtain my CLS I would immediately overcome all of my short comings see the light and know what I didn't realize what I didn't know! WOW! And here I hold an AS/MLT with almost as much scientific training as you CLS folks and 25+ years experience in all disciplines within the hospital laboratory and the ability to consistantly pass proficiencies and yes, to actually be able to operate the LIS and correctly select the correct result to release.
This argument is right up there with the old old argument of of "ASCP is far superior to AMT. ASCP is the only acceptably registration". The argument only exists because you choose it to be. While everyone in the Left Coast is trying to get rid of MLTs don't forget to dump on the HEW techs, most of which are OJT with no college at all. There is very little differentiation between techs here. We are all Medical Techs and perform the same duties.
Geez, get over yourselves.

Critical thinking? Kinda like the statement that respect is given with a MLS and not earned with experience. Preachers preach and others set the example. If MT's work and set an example, then others want to be like them...instead of preaching, taking breaks, finding any way to get out of bench work and delegating.

Larry I would not bother commenting on here since the moderators remove most of your comments

I'll be at Sneaky Pete's tomorrow at 6.

Ok,

The reason why you whiny CLS's do not get the money that you are asking for is because the field is not united. It is all about me, me, me. And not Us, Us, Us. The RN's, LPN's, etc. are all united. But no, not the lab, so get over it.