The IBMS e-newsletter arrived in my inbox this morning. Sometimes it is more interesting than others.
It started off with an article about the IBMS AGM. There’s no denying that I nearly gave up at this point. For all that there are people who work tirelessly for the IBMS I can’t pretend to be in any way interested in the corporate things they are doing.
The next article was advising that students ensure that the degree courses they are taking are IBMS accredited. A valid concern for the students, but not for me.
The third article had promise; a link to all sorts of courses. However those that were relevant to me were either not very local, or were rather expensive. For example the Cosmos Biomedical CPD scheme looked good, but not forty quid good.
I rather gave up at that point…
Labels: IBMS Newsletter
An interesting case today – look at these results. Nothing particularly disastrous, but everything rather on the low side.
Specimen Results Entry
PITSTOP,PENELOPE AB+ 30/06/2016 10:00
MRS 17/02/1955 Female 0123456 KCH Out Patients Dept.
22 The Street Dr Kildare
Specimen No : AK642984P Selected Auth Level : S
HB ^9.5 S000 |NEUH 1.4 S000 | |
HBG 95 S000 |LYMPH 0.7 S000 | |
WBC 2.3 S000 |MONO 0.2 S000 | |
PLT 72 S000 |EOS 0.0 S000 | |
RBC 3.23 S000 |BASO 0.0 S000 | |
HCT 0.295 S000 |FR ^FLMREV S000 | |
MCV 91.3 S000 | | |
MCH 29.4 S000 | | |
MCHC ^32.2 S000 | | |
MCHCG 322 S000 | | |
LTG comments : <F.>,FR
1 Auth'd 2 Unauth'd 3 Nomin'd 4 Change 5 Reject 6 Options 7 eXit> U
The patient had a one word diagnosis “Daratumumab”. So over to Google…
Daratumumab is used in cases of myeloma. Once I’d looked it up it seemed very familiar.
I’m sure I’ve blogged about it before. I wonder if I will do so again. Mind you reminding myself is (in part) what CPD is all about.
Issue 64 of the HCPC’s e-newsletter “In Focus” arrived in my inbox today. Some months it is quite interesting, other months it can be rather dull.
It started off with an article emphasising the importance of raising concerns. Whilst I realise just how important it is to raise concerns when they are valid, part of me can’t help but speculate whether there is maybe a little too much of this unnecessarily going on.
There was talk of revised standards of conduct for students, and concern was expressed that social workers will have their own body and no longer come under the remit of the HCPC. There was another article about how the four UK governments are talking about reforming the regulation of health and care professionals.
Is this the end for the HCPC with each profession effectively going its own way? Time will tell. – Perhaps it isn’t as the States of Jersey have asked the HCPC to get involved with their health care.
There was also talk about research into fitness to practice concerns and allegations. Apparently paramedics and social workers get proportionally too many complaints.
And there was a survey in which registrants were asked what we thought about the process by which renewing registration took place. I started the survey out of interest and (in all honesty) wished I hadn’t as I had no real interest in the subject.
Mind you for all that his wasn’t one of the more enthralling e-newsletters, this certainly wasn’t one of the worst.
Labels: HCPC Newsletter
We had a case of anti-Cw in the lab today. I was always under the impression that the Cw antigen was allelic to the C and c antigens. The boss was under the impression that it wasn’t.
I did a little looking up and found an article on-line which said that neither the Cw antigen (nor the Cx antigen) were allelic to the C and c antigens. Mind you it didn’t really go into much detail as to what the antigens were, so much as what they were not.
Labels: journal review