The UKAS newsletter came through this morning. There has been an
update to the following UKAS Publication(s):
They
are all rather dry documents…
This is (supposed to be) a reflective diary by a (not very) anonymous biomedical scientist who works somewhere in the south of England. One day this diary may well be submitted to the Health and Care Professions Council as evidence of ongoing continual professional development....
1 July 2016 (Friday) - IBMS e-newsletter
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…
30 June 2016 (Thursday) - Daratumumab
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
U U
Specimen
No :
AK642984P Selected
Auth Level : S
--------------------T-------------------T-------------------T-------------------
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 | | |
--------------------T-------------------T-------------------T-------------------
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.
30 June 2016 (Thursday) - HCPC e-newsletter
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.
22 June 2016 (Wednesday) - Cw
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)