I was sought out via email by a PA MSc trainee recently and we exchanged several emails on the subject of quality assurance. As someone whose job it is to advocate for the patient (my title is PA Quality Coordinator), I provide support for the PAs. I told the trainee that I had written the grossing manual (she informed me that the centre at which she was being trained did not have a grossing manual!) and that I regularly critiqued the PAs' work. In a subsequent email, she told me that one of her supervisors said that I must be the "most hated PA in the country". Maybe I am. Thankfully (for me and, more importantly, for the patients) this is not a popularity contest. Egos can't get in the way of ensuring the proper handling of surgical pathology specimens. Anyone who takes a suggestion or a criticism personally needs to think less about him/herself and more about the patient. Even more, anyone who forges ahead without being absolutely certain of how to approach a specimen -- thus potentially jeopardizing the patient's care -- hoping that s/he doesn't make a serious error, had better re-think their approach. This is no game. Peoples' lives are at stake and there is no room for error. There is most definitely no room for ego or personality. The pathologists who we assist must be able to depend upon us consulting if/when there is any doubt (including uncertainty about the medicine or the pathology or the manner in which a specimen should be handled).
Still to come: inadequate PA training.
Monday, May 18, 2015
The Interrogation Room
I watched The Fifth Estate on Friday evening (CBC, May 15, 2015), an episode entitled, The Interrogation Room.
The event around which this episode centred had to do with the birthday party of this guy who had, it seems, some unsavoury acquaintances in attendance. One of these was murdered by others on the lawn outside the building in which the birthday party was taking place. The birthday boy's best friend was standing beside him (there was video to prove it) in the building, both enjoying listening to an acquaintance singing, when the murder took place and, when asked (in the interrogation room) afterwards, he stood up for his friend (who the police believed had perpetrated the crime) saying that there was no way that he could have murdered the guy. The cops had a different idea of how things went and proceeded over the course of the next day (many non-stop hours without food or drink), all in the interrogation room, to get the friendly witness to admit, just so he could get the hell out of there, to their way of viewing the crime (ie. he 'ratted' on his best friend). Does this sound at all like Omar Khadr's experience to you? Omar, at the age of 15, admitted to killing the American serviceman and was, as a result, incarcerated until very recently. Both interrogations used similar tactics. There's a method used by the police called the Reid Technique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_technique) wherein one can eventually get anyone to admit to anything. The friend was an innocent and he was treated like a criminal. It doesn't have to be physical torture; it can by psychological.
So, the birthday boy was accused of murder and eventually the case came to trial. He had been incarcerated during all of this time (years). His friend, the witness who had been coerced into admitting that he saw his friend murder the guy, admitted under oath that he had been bullied by the cops into saying whatever it was they wanted him to say. So, his testimony was worthless. He and another previously-friendly witness (also 'interrogated') were the only witnesses for the crown's case against the birthday boy. Obviously, the birthday boy was not convicted. He however spent YEARS in jail. All of these individuals' lives were changed forever by the harassment inflicted upon them by the police.
I hope you're getting the context vis a vis that which befell me a couple of years ago. You've probably heard of 'blame the victim'? The shoe fits.
I am encouraged that the Globe and Mail has weighed-in on the subject of police brutality (and they intend to continue to voice their opinion in a rare 2-part editorial). Lending their voice to the public's might be helpful. The excessive use of all-too-often lethal force by police against innocents must end. There must be better training and much better supervision and accountability of those who become police. Hiring criteria should also be examined.
Stay tuned: Next post will deal with inadequate training of PAs.
The event around which this episode centred had to do with the birthday party of this guy who had, it seems, some unsavoury acquaintances in attendance. One of these was murdered by others on the lawn outside the building in which the birthday party was taking place. The birthday boy's best friend was standing beside him (there was video to prove it) in the building, both enjoying listening to an acquaintance singing, when the murder took place and, when asked (in the interrogation room) afterwards, he stood up for his friend (who the police believed had perpetrated the crime) saying that there was no way that he could have murdered the guy. The cops had a different idea of how things went and proceeded over the course of the next day (many non-stop hours without food or drink), all in the interrogation room, to get the friendly witness to admit, just so he could get the hell out of there, to their way of viewing the crime (ie. he 'ratted' on his best friend). Does this sound at all like Omar Khadr's experience to you? Omar, at the age of 15, admitted to killing the American serviceman and was, as a result, incarcerated until very recently. Both interrogations used similar tactics. There's a method used by the police called the Reid Technique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_technique) wherein one can eventually get anyone to admit to anything. The friend was an innocent and he was treated like a criminal. It doesn't have to be physical torture; it can by psychological.
So, the birthday boy was accused of murder and eventually the case came to trial. He had been incarcerated during all of this time (years). His friend, the witness who had been coerced into admitting that he saw his friend murder the guy, admitted under oath that he had been bullied by the cops into saying whatever it was they wanted him to say. So, his testimony was worthless. He and another previously-friendly witness (also 'interrogated') were the only witnesses for the crown's case against the birthday boy. Obviously, the birthday boy was not convicted. He however spent YEARS in jail. All of these individuals' lives were changed forever by the harassment inflicted upon them by the police.
I hope you're getting the context vis a vis that which befell me a couple of years ago. You've probably heard of 'blame the victim'? The shoe fits.
I am encouraged that the Globe and Mail has weighed-in on the subject of police brutality (and they intend to continue to voice their opinion in a rare 2-part editorial). Lending their voice to the public's might be helpful. The excessive use of all-too-often lethal force by police against innocents must end. There must be better training and much better supervision and accountability of those who become police. Hiring criteria should also be examined.
Stay tuned: Next post will deal with inadequate training of PAs.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
