NCA and BOR Consider New Credentialing Agency

The National Credentialing Agency for Laboratory Personnel Inc. (NCA) and the Board of Registry (BOR) of the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) may unite to form a novel credentialing agency. Patricia Ellinger, MS Chair of the BOR Board of Governors, and Kathryn Doig, PhD President of the NCA Board of Directors jointly announced the effort at the ASCLS Clinical Laboratory Educators' discourse March 2, 2006 in San Antonio. through invitation, E. Blair Holladay, PhD BOR Executive Director, addressed the NCA board at its regular meeting, November 4 2005 leading to the disentanglement of a letter of intent signed December 12 at BOR headquarters by dint of Drs Doig and Holladay and M Ellinger and through BOR Vice-chair Cynthia Johns and NCA Executive Director Sheila O'Neal. The non-binding alphabetic character opens the opportunity for consideration of a novel agency.

NCA was chartered in 1978 as a peer-review credentialing agency in answer to concerns for pathologists' command of the clinical laboratory science (CLS) profession and has functioned as an independent agency sponsored by dint of the American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science (ASCLS) and the Association of Genetic Technologists. Generalist certifications end NCA lead to the Clinical Laboratory Scientist [CL (NCA)] and Clinical Laboratory Technician [CLT (NCA)] credentials. The BOR is an agency of ASCP and BOR generalist certifications are Medical Technologist [MT (ASCP)] and Medical Laboratory Technician [MLT (ASCP)]. There were 976 BOR MT examinees in the first half of 2005; NCA examined 521 CL candidates in all of 2005

Conference attendees voiced enthusiastic approval. belong to for clinical pathologists' constraint of clinical laboratory scientists' practice has moderated in the years since ASCP became independent from the community of American Pathologists and as the CL profession has grown in numbers, representation, and stature. The existence of parallel, competing agencies creates confusion among employer and graduates, spends resources, and weakens our profession's public voice. Unity would establish consistent standards for professional entrance reduce confusion, and enhance our influence upon state licensure laws, federal regulations, and employ standards. It would assemble our talented professionals serving one as well as the other agencies to strengthen credentialing activities, and enhance the financial security of the two agencies, which has held steady on the other hand not grown during the new dip in certificant numbers.

What unification issues face us? The technical issues include, on the other hand are not limited to...

* What form do the fresh exams take?

* What exam delivery agency do we employ?

* by what means do we resolve tax status differences?

* What does a of recent origin agency mean for present credentialholders?

* in what way do we resolve differences in certification maintenance programs?

* in what way does the new agency mix the various specialty and certificant credentials and exams?

Perhaps more important, we must address credential name, the makeup of the agency board, and autonomy.

What name do we want? Medical Technologist? Clinical Laboratory Scientist? Medical Laboratory Scientist? The internationally recognized title, Biom?©dical Scientist? What does a novel credential name mean to employer state licensing boards, and federal agencies that regulate laboratories? What about federal and state agencies that provide funding and that commonly recognize the terms CLS and MT? Do popular certificants change their credential name? What name would be best recognized and valueed by the public?

How would the fresh board look? What constitutes mate leadership and review? How many pathologists should be included, by what mode many clinical laboratory scientists? Should it be chaired by means of a clinical laboratory scientist? A clinical pathologist? Who achieves to vote, who serves as an advisor?

And finally, to whom would the of recent origin agency report? ASCP? ASCLS? Perhaps the best approach, press outed at the educators' meeting through Lucy J. Randies, MA, CL is the "NAACLS model" The National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences, which audits and accredits clinical laboratory science gymnasiums throughout the world, is an independent agency supported in part from oweds paid by member organizations. The NAACLS board includes representatives from its member organizations and the profession's constituency. An independent credentialing agency like NAACLS would be responsive to, and best show the needs of the profession.

We've got insightful, cautious leaders willing to hammer on the outside the details for the novel agency, and we know the answers will not appear overnight. The decisions we make have serious implications for the futurity of our profession, and your input will help. Please launch questions and suggestions to Sheila O'Neal or Kathy Doig at nca-info@goamp.com and to Pat Ellinger, Cindy John or Blair Holladay at BORNCA@ascp. org. We've got an opportunity to contribute to the futurity of our profession.

George A Fritsma M MT(ASCP) is Clinical Laboratory Science Continuing Education Editor.

Copyright American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science Summer 2006

Provided by means of ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved