Friends Biologists, hello.
The new legislative context of medical biology confronts the realities. Biologists appropriated the text of the order, read, interpret and issues emerge one after another. Who can answer these questions?
The problem is that legal recourse is limited. For now, there are only two institutions that have a (an) identified jurist (e): College of Pharmacists and the SDB. It is not enough. Meanwhile, it is necessary to centralize questions, gather and sort them by size and theme. In this context, I publish the post of a field biologist who challenges us on the responsibility of biologists regarding removals. The problem is huge, if you have any suggestions or comments, go to the end of the post.
The problem is that legal recourse is limited. For now, there are only two institutions that have a (an) identified jurist (e): College of Pharmacists and the SDB. It is not enough. Meanwhile, it is necessary to centralize questions, gather and sort them by size and theme. In this context, I publish the post of a field biologist who challenges us on the responsibility of biologists regarding removals. The problem is huge, if you have any suggestions or comments, go to the end of the post.
GoM
"A debate could open up the responsibility of the notice of levy. We talk about little but the delegation of levy from paramedics while maintaining accountability is an extremely delicate.
Order clearly describes the 3 phases of the act of medical biology with pre-analytical phase includes the removal (L 6211-2). It also says a little further than examining medical biology is performed under the responsibility of medical biologist (L 6211-7). It is written in this article that the liability would apply only to certain phases of the examination. Why and under what conditions?
Then, Article L 6211-11, which for the first time in the text the concept of Biologist (not very clear concept defined later) said that the biologist retains full responsibility for the whole examination even if one phase is performed outside the laboratory. Is there not a contradiction?
Regarding the pre-analytical and sampling, the legislature provides for the application of an agreement with third parties so that they respect the procedures in the laboratory (L & L 6211-14 6211-15). That contain these conventions? And who will be responsible for the act of removal? Critical example, the hospital where the samples are taken most often by nurses Services will be responsible? The biologist or the Head of Hospital Service? And the nurses who are liberal? The professional activity it does not recognize the full responsibility of the person who performs an act, a mission, service, etc.. and for which he is paid? If nurses have more responsibility for this act, is it our "biologists responsible" (again ...) to pay them? And if there is a misnomer on the tubes, on the transmission sheet or other documents and we have no way of noticing (this can happen), who is responsible? The sampler " Liberal "mandated by the laboratory or biologist?
Article L 6211-17 requires that the biologist determines in advance of medical examinations to be carried out sampling and procedures to apply. This is perfectly consistent with the previous articles as this will prevent a large number of sampling errors and increase the responsibility of the biologist on the pre-analytical phase. But in practice, how does it make? Some say that patients should call the lab to make their appointments ... How to force them? How already inform this new rule?
Another crucial aspect of these articles is the deregulation created on the relationship between practice nurses, pharmacists and biologists. Collection and specimen collection could be carried everywhere, whether lab or on-site pharmacies. Some will not fail to rush into these holes to capture the activity of neighboring open a center to see samples (sites medical biology laboratory?). And there, we discuss the financial aspect of the case ...
Article L 6211-21 prevents Does it really any surrender fees or COMMERCIAL standard fee related to a service? Opinions seem very divided on this aspect. While it is clear that we can not do discount or rebate (that is to say, charge less than the social security costs), as one can legitimately ask the question of compensation fixed transmission that pay this act of transmission? Biomnis CERBA and said no, but some biologists seem to really say otherwise with all the excesses that can be imagined.
UréeCréat
Biologist "
