Musings on review of CBS as an employer by a Donor Care Associate

Updated: 26 Feb. 2018 (expanded the ending)

Decided to write shorter blogs, perhaps one each week. We'll see how it goes.

I've always known shorter blogs were the way to go, because transfusion professionals, like most folks these days, are busy. Busy in their work lives, family lives, and often overwhelmed by the onslaught of digital input, whether via texting, e-mail or social media.

But I credit the motivation to write shorter blogs to a UK transfusion professional who tweeted about the blogs of Mary Beard: A Don's Life. Somehow I'd missed them.

So the first short blog is about a review of Canadian Blood Services by a 'Donor Care Associate" which I came across on my @transfusionnews twitter account. I'll begin with my tweets.

If you click on the review and get 'sign in with'...just click on the text outside the request or access the review here.

CBS gets good reviews as place to work, many from volunteers vs staff or ex-staff. As #transfusion instructor I valued criticism >than praise (which I got lots of) with aim to improve
"Donor Care Associate" https://t.co/838ivD9rlb

— Cyber Bloodbanker (@transfusionnews) February 23, 2018

Now we can choose to dismiss such reviews because they're anonymous. For interest, many folks I know hesitate to critique employers until they retire and are no longer subject to a backlash.

Several points the reviewer made peaked my curiosity. First:

Follow-up on Donor Care Associate review of CBS. They need to meet phlebotomy stats? Really? ~To evaluating #transfusion service med lab techs on no. T&S or XMs done w/o taking into account patients with antibodies https://t.co/838ivD9rlb pic.twitter.com/Gn0qLIh9YJ

— Cyber Bloodbanker (@transfusionnews) February 25, 2018

Second:

Management tactic has long history in AB 🇨🇦's clinical labs. Has it ended & now transferred to Donor Care Associates, among most vulnerable? I always saw this as disgusting way employers exploit staff then brag how cost-effective they are, while drawing 6-figure salaries pic.twitter.com/1dYA1ZcRhF

— Cyber Bloodbanker (@transfusionnews) February 25, 2018

Note that the reviewer worked at CBS part-time for 3 years and included several pros about working for them. Frankly, I cannot dismiss her Cons as outright lies. In general, criticism works best if it contains helpful and specific suggestions for positive change.

In my teaching career, I'd explain to students that feedback is an indispensable tool to help both instructor and learner improve and, when given feedback, model appropriate responses such as, "Thanks for telling me that."  When MLS students entered their clinical internship year, I'd explain that they can improve only if supervisory staff tell them when they are doing something wrong or doing something that needs to be improved.

Can CBS take criticism in the same vein? (no pun intended)

As always comments are most welcome.