Development of the Critical Values system redefined what STAT means in clinical laboratory testing turnaround times
Where did the concept of critical values and having clinical laboratories report them to referring physicians originate? How did the concept blossom into a standard practice in laboratory medicine? Given the importance of critical values, a lookback into how this aspect of laboratory medicine was developed is helpful to understand how and why this has become an essential element in the practice of medicine and an opportunity for labs to add value in patient care.
According to Stanford Medicine, critical/panic values are defined as “values that are outside the normal range to a degree that may constitute an immediate health risk to the individual or require immediate action on the part of the ordering physician.”
What you’ll read below is an insider’s account of the “birth of critical values reporting.”
According to Lundberg, an unaccompanied man was brought to the hospital in a coma and an examination revealed a laceration to his scalp. The patient was admitted to the neurosurgical unit where clinical laboratory tests were performed, including a complete blood count (CBC) analysis, urinalysis, and serum electrolytes. All the test results came back normal except the patient’s serum glucose (blood sugar level) which was 6 mg% in concentration.
“The hard-copy laboratory results were returned to the ward of origin within two hours of receipt of the specimens in the laboratory. However, the results were not noticed by the house officers who were busy with several other seriously ill patients. Ward personnel also failed to communicate the lab results to the responsible physicians,” Lundberg wrote.
When hospital staff did finally notice the test result the next morning glucose was immediately administered to the patient, but it was too late to prevent irreversible brain damage. The man soon passed away.
Following this incident, the hospital developed a “Critical Value Recognition and Reporting System.” The system generated new numbers that were termed “Panic Values.”
However, “critics complained that good doctors should never panic, so the name was changed to Critical Values,” Lundberg explained.
When any of these critical test values were out of the norm, “we required the responsible laboratory person to quickly verify the result and use the telephone (long before laboratory computers) to personally notify a responsible individual (no messages left) who agreed to find a physician who could quickly act on the result. All was documented with times and names,” he wrote.
“We understand that when a physician wants something, he/she wants it, no matter what. Well, in this patient-focused approach, the physician cannot have it, except as offered by the patient-focused approach, based on TAT [turnaround times of clinical laboratory tests],” wrote George Lundberg, MD (above), President and Chair of the Board of Directors of the Lundberg Institute, and Clinical Professor of Pathology at Northwestern University in an article he penned for the National Medical Journal of India (Photo copyright: Dark Intelligence Group. Shows Dr. Lundberg in 2011 addressing the Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management.)
New Clinical Laboratory Standards
Recognition of the urgency to adopt new hospital standards related to certain clinical laboratory test results came swiftly. In 1972, Lundberg was invited to publish an article explaining the new Critical Value Recognition and Reporting System in Medical Laboratory Observer.
According to Lundberg, “most laboratory tests that are done do not need to be done; the results are either negative, normal, or show no change from a prior result. But some are crucial.”
The original set of Critical Values included the following testing results:
The list of values were later expanded to include “vital values.” These values describe lab results for which “action” is important, but where timing is less urgent. Examples of vital values include:
Lundberg and his colleagues went on to redefine what constitutes a laboratory test and what renders a test successful. They discussed laboratory procedures with committees of clinicians, lab personnel and patients, and reorganized hematology, chemistry, and toxicology based on the turnaround time (TAT) of tests.
“We ‘started the clock’—any and all days/times 24×7—when a specimen arrived at some place within the laboratory, and stopped the clock when a final result was available somewhere in the laboratory,” Lundberg wrote in NMJI. “We categorized all tests as: less than one hour, less than four hours, less than 24 hours, and more than 24 hours, guaranteed, 24×7. As a trade-off, we abolished the concept of ‘STAT’ orders … NO EXCEPTIONS. The rationale of each TAT was the speed with which a result was needed to render proper medical care that mattered to the welfare of the patient, and, of course, that was technically possible.”
Since then, very little has changed for the Critical Values System over the past 50 years. The majority of values added have fallen under the “Vital” category and not the “Critical” category. Today, most health systems and clinical laboratories create their own internal processes and procedures regarding which values need to be reported immediately (critical), which values are not urgent (vital), and how those results should be handled.
Clinical laboratories nationwide could follow Yale’s example and enact programs to bring much needed lab services to traditionally underserved communities
Ever since the COVID-19 pandemic drove up demand for telehealth medical services, mobile clinical laboratories have grown in popularity as well, especially among residents of remote and traditionally underserved communities. Now, several divisions of Yale University are getting in on the trend.
“Using a van retrofitted with laboratory-grade diagnostic equipment, the mobile clinic will employ SalivaDirect—a saliva-based COVID-19 PCR test developed at YSPH—to facilitate on-site testing with a turnaround time of two to three hours,” Yale Daily News reported.
Funded by a federal grant, the initial goal was to provide 400 free COVID-19 tests, but the program has exceeded that number. By April 10, the mobile lab had been deployed more than 60 times, appearing at events and pop-up sites throughout various communities in Connecticut, including regular stops at the WHEAT Food Pantry of West Haven.
“[The clinical laboratory-in-a-van] is a brilliant way to reduce the barriers to testing, instead taking the lab to communities who may be less likely—or unable—to access the necessary clinic or labs,” microbiologist Anne Wyllie, PhD, a research scientist who helped develop the PCR test deployed by the mobile lab told Yale Daily News. Wyllie works in the Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases at Yale School of Public Health. “We are actively working with our community partners to identify how we can best serve their communities,” she added. (Photo copyright: Yale School of Medicine.)
Mobile Lab’s Capabilities
Collecting samples, processing, and delivering same-day COVID-19 results was the initial goal but that plan has expanded, Yale School of Medicine noted in a news release.
“Same-day onsite delivery of test results is an added benefit for communities and individuals without access to Wi-Fi or the ability to receive private health information electronically,” Yale added.
The mobile van is staffed with trained clinical laboratory technicians as well as community health navigators who provide both healthcare information and proper follow-up connections as needed for patients who receive positive COVID-19 results. The van runs off power from outdoor electrical outlets at each location and currently serves historically underserved populations in Hartford, Middlesex, Fairfield, New Haven, and New London counties, Yale noted.
“The van allows us to bring our services, as well as healthcare information, directly to communities where they are needed,” said Angelique Levi, MD, Associate Professor, Vice Chair and Director of Pathology Reference Services, and CLIA Laboratory Medical Director in the Department of Pathology at Yale University School of Medicine in a news release.
Launch of a High Complexity Molecular Lab on Wheels
YPL and YSPH collaborated to make the mobile lab a reality. YSPH created the saliva-based COVID-19 test and YPL “provided clinical validation necessary to get the testing method ready for emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration,” Yale noted.
“YPL recognized the need to be closer to the front lines of patient care and that retrofitting a fully licensed, high complexity molecular laboratory into a consumer-sized van was the right next step,” Chen Liu, MD, PhD, Chair of the Department of Pathology at Yale School of Medicine, noted in a Yale news release. This “gives us options to efficiently deliver accurate diagnostic information when and where it’s needed,” he added.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the Connecticut Department of Public Health, the City of New Haven, and various community organizations partnered with YPL, YSPH, and the SalivaDirect team to offer free SARS-CoV-2 testing to the public at two different sites in New Haven.
Principal investigators Levi and microbiologist Anne Wyllie, PhD, who helped develop the PCR test deployed by the mobile, lab led the Yale lab-in-a-van research project.
Flambeau Diagnostics, a biomedical company that specializing in mobile lab testing, worked with the Yale team to design and implement the mobile lab van.
“According to Wyllie, the new YSPH and YPL initiative utilizes one of the former Flambeau vans that had been retrofitted for clinical testing,” a Yale news release noted.
Kat Fajardo, Laboratory Manager at Yale University, added custom pieces of equipment to ensure seamless PCR testing. One was a Magnetic Induction Cycler (Mic) measuring only six by six inches. The Mic allowed for measurement of 46 biological specimens, while it’s diminutive size freed up space on the van’s countertop. This allowed lab techs to process specimens concurrently while also providing COVID-19 testing, according to a Yale news release.
Additionally, the van has a Myra portable robotic liquid handler which is “designed to automate the process of moving clinical specimens between vials,” the news release notes.
“What we wanted to do is run high complexity testing in the van, with a reduced timeframe, and then be able to get the results out to the patients as soon as we possibly could,” Fajardo stated.
Exploring the Mobile Laboratory’s Potential
According to a news release, YPL and YSPH consult with community partners to select locations for the mobile lab to visit. These partners include:
APT Foundation (New Haven County, in addition to others.
Although the van was initially used to provide SalivaDirect COVID-19 testing to vulnerable populations, YPL is working with its partners in those communities to identify other testing needs beyond COVID.
The Yale team is considering additional offerings and support such as the addition of a social worker as well as expanding lung health awareness beyond COVID-19 to other respiratory diseases. Also under consideration:
Vaccinations including for COVID-19 and Hepatitis B, and
Health education and materials for harm reduction and STI prevention, a Yale news release noted.
Yale’s Laboratory-in-a-Van program is a consumer-facing effort that is bringing much needed clinical lab services to traditionally underserved communities in Connecticut. Clinical laboratories throughout the nation could do the same with remote or homebound patients who cannot reach critical care.
New guidelines also advise people to limit their vitamin D supplementation to recommended daily doses
Clinical laboratories may eventually receive fewer doctors’ orders for vitamin D testing thanks to new guidelines released by the Endocrine Society. The new Clinical Practice Guideline advises against “unnecessary testing for vitamin D levels.” It also urges healthy people, and those 75-years of age or younger, to avoid taking the vitamin at levels above the daily recommended amounts, according to a news release.
Even though the Endocrine Society does recommend vitamin D supplements for certain groups, it advises individuals to hold off on routine testing. That’s because there appears to be uncertainty among ordering clinicians about what to do for patients based on their vitamin D test results.
“When clinicians measure vitamin D, they’re forced to decide what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So, what this panel is saying is ‘Don’t screen,’” Clifford Rosen, MD, Director of Clinical and Translational Research and Senior Scientist, Maine Medical Center Research Institute at the University of Maine, told Medscape Medical News.
“We have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group,” he added.
“This guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them,” the author of the Endocrine Society guideline, Anastassios G. Pittas, MD (above), Professor of Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, told Medscape Medical News. This new guideline could result in doctors ordering fewer vitamin D tests from clinical laboratories. (Photo copyright: Tufts University.)
Vitamin D Screening Not Recommended for Certain Groups
The Endocrine Society’s new clinical guidelines advise healthy adults under 75 years of age to refrain from taking vitamin D supplements that exceed US Institute of Medicine—now the National Academy of Medicine (NAM)—recommendations.
Additionally, these updated guidelines:
Recommend vitamin D supplements at levels above NAM recommendations to help lower risks faced by children 18 years and younger, adults 75 and older, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes.
Suggest daily, lower-dose vitamin D (instead of non-daily, higher-dose of the vitamin) for people 50 years and older who have “indications for vitamin D supplementation or treatment.”
Advise “against routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D [aka, calcifediol] levels” in all the above groups “since outcome-specific benefits based on these levels have not been identified. This includes 25-hyrdoxyvitamin D screening in people with dark complexion or obesity.”
One exception to the guideline applies to people with already established osteoporosis, according to the guideline’s author endocrinologist Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, Chief of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism; Co-Director, Tuft’s Diabetes and Lipid Center; and Professor of Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.
Vitamin D’s Link to Disease Studied
During a panel discussion at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting, members acknowledged that many studies have shown relationships between serum concentrations of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) and physical disorders including those of musculoskeletal, metabolic, and cardiovascular systems. Still, they questioned the link of vitamin D supplementation and testing with disease prevention.
“There is paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases. … What we really need are large-scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens,” said Panel Chair Marie Demay, MD, Endocrinologist, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Medscape Medical News reported.
Meanwhile, in their Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism paper, the researchers note that use of supplements (1,000 IU or more per day) increased from 0.3% to 18.2%, according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), CDC, for the years 1999-2000 and 2013-2014.
“The use of 25(OH)D testing in clinical practice has also been increasing; however, the cost effectiveness of widespread testing has been questioned, especially given the uncertainty surrounding the optimal level of 25(OH)D required to prevent disease,” the authors wrote.
“Thus, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in all populations considered,” the researchers stated at the Endocrine Society annual meeting.
Other Groups Weigh-in on Vitamin D Testing
Pathologists and medical laboratory leaders may recall the explosion in vitamin D testing starting about 20 years ago. Vitamin D testing reimbursed by Medicare Part B “increased 83-fold” during the years 2000 to 2010, according to data cited in an analysis by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).
Also, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a statement that there is not enough information to “recommend for or against” testing for vitamin D deficiency.
“No organization recommends population-based screening for vitamin D deficiency, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology recommends against it,” the USPSTF noted.
Clinical Laboratories Can Get the Word Out
The vitamin D debate has been going on for a while. And the latest guidance from the Endocrine Society may cause physicians and patients to stop ordering vitamin D tests as part of annual physicals or in routine screenings.
Medical laboratories can provide value by ensuring physicians and patients have the latest information about vitamin D test orders, reports, and interpretation.
Infection control teams and clinical laboratory managers may want to look at this new product designed to improve the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis
Accurate and fast diagnosis of sepsis for patients arriving in emergency departments is the goal of a new product that was just cleared by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is also the newest example of how artificial intelligence (AI) continues to find its way into pathology and clinical laboratory medicine.
Sepsis is one of the deadliest killers in US hospitals. That is why there is interest in the recent action by the FDA to grant marketing authorization for an AI-powered sepsis detection software through the agency’s De Novo Classification Request. The DNCR “provides a marketing pathway to classify novel medical devices for which general controls alone, or general and special controls, provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for the intended use, but for which there is no legally marketed predicate device,” the FDA’s website states.
Unlike a single analyte assay that is run in a clinical laboratory, Prenosis’ AI/ML software uses 22 diagnostic and predictive parameters, along with ML algorithms, to analyze data and produce a clinically actionable answer on sepsis.
It is important for clinical laboratory managers and pathologists to recognize that this diagnostic approach to sepsis brings together a number of data points commonly found in a patient’s electronic health record (EHR), some of which the lab generated and others the lab did not generate.
“Sepsis is a serious and sometimes deadly complication. Technologies developed to help prevent this condition have the potential to provide a significant benefit to patients,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in a statement. “The FDA’s authorization of the Prenosis Sepsis ImmunoScore software establishes specific premarket and post-market requirements for this device type.” Clinical laboratory EHRs contain some of the data points Prenosis’ diagnostic software uses. (Photo copyright: US Food and Drug Administration.)
How it Works
To assist doctors diagnose sepsis, the ImmunoScore software is first integrated into the patient’s hospital EHR. From there, it leverages 22 parameters including:
White blood cell count to produce a score that informs caregivers of the patient’s risk for sepsis within 24 hours, MedTech Dive reported.
Instead of requiring a doctor or nurse to look at each parameter separately, the SaMD tool uses AI “to evaluate all those markers at once”, CNBC noted. It then produces a risk score and four discrete risk stratification categories (low, medium, high, and very high) which correlate to “a patient’s risk of deterioration” represented by:
By sharing these details—a number from one to 100 for each of the 22 diagnostic and predictive parameters—Sepsis ImmunoScore helps doctors determine which will likely contribute most to the patient’s risk for developing sepsis, MedTech Dive reported.
“A lot of clinicians don’t trust AI products for multiple reasons. We are trying very hard to counter that skepticism by making a tool that was validated by the FDA first, and then the second piece is we’re not trying to replace the clinician,” Bobby Reddy Jr., PhD, Prenosis co-founder and CEO, told MedTech Dive.
Big Biobank and Blood Sample Data
Prenosis, which says its goal is the “enabling [of] precision medicine in acute care” developed Sepsis ImmunoScore using the company’s own biobank and a dataset of more than 100,000 blood samples from more than 25,000 patients.
AI algorithms drew on this biological/clinical dataset—the largest in the world for acute care patients suspected of having serious infections, according to Prenosis—to “elucidate patterns in rapid immune response.”
“It does not work without data, and the data started at Carle,” said critical care specialist Karen White, MD, PhD, Carle Foundation Hospital, St. Louis, MO, in the news release. “The project involved a large number of physicians, research staff, and internal medicine residents at Carle who helped recruit patients, collect data, and samples,” she said.
Opportunity for Clinical Laboratories
Sepsis is a life-threatening condition based on an “extreme response to an infection” that affects nearly 1.7 million adults in the US each year and is responsible for 350,000 deaths, according to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data.
A non-invasive diagnostic tool like Sepsis ImmunoScore will be a boon to emergency physicians and the patients they treat. Now that the FDA has authorized the SaMD diagnostic tool to go to market, it may not be long before physicians can use the information it produces to save lives.
Clinical laboratory managers inspired by the development of Sepsis ImmunoScore may want to look for similar ways they can take certain lab test results and combine them with other data in an EHR to create intelligence that physicians can use to better treat their patients. The way forward in laboratory medicine will be combining lab test results with other relevant sets of data to create clinically actionable intelligence for physicians, patients, and payers.
Only about a third of the hospitals surveyed are in full compliance with giving public access to prices, the watchdog group contends, but the AHA disputes its methodology
It’s been almost four years since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) enacted its Hospital Price Transparency rule which requires hospitals—including their medical laboratories—to make their prices available and easily accessible to the public. But according to a 2024 report from PatientRightsAdvocate.org (PRA), just 34.5% of reviewed hospitals are fully compliant with the transparency rule. That’s a slight decrease from the 36% compliance rate the PRA listed in its 2023 report, the watchdog group stated in a blog post.
Released on Feb. 29, this was the group’s sixth semi-annual hospital price transparency report since the CMS rule took effect in 2021.
The rule “requires hospitals to post all prices online, easily accessible and searchable, in the form of (i) a single machine-readable standard charges file for all items, services, and drugs by all payers and all plans, the de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated rates, and all discounted cash prices, as well as (ii) prices for the 300 most common shoppable services either as a consumer-friendly standard charges display listing actual prices or, alternatively, as a price estimator tool,” the report states.
The required viewable prices are to be for, among others, medical imaging, clinical laboratory testing, and outpatient procedures such as a colonoscopies, etc.
“With full transparency, consumers can benefit from competition to make informed decisions, protect from overcharges, billing errors, and fraud, and lower their costs,” the report states. “Employer and union plans can use pricing and claims data to improve their plan designs and direct members to lower cost, high-quality facilities. However, continued noncompliance impedes this ability.”
At any time, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) could decide to file charges against a hospital or a clinical laboratory for not posting their prices on their websites in compliance with the federal rule. Such an action by DOJ officials would be to specifically put the entire industry on notice that there will be consequences for non-compliance.
The PRA’s report provides hospitals and clinical laboratories with a reminder that consumer watchdogs are also monitoring compliance.
“Our comprehensive study of 2,000 hospitals indicates nearly two-thirds (65.5%) of hospitals reviewed continue failing to fully comply with the rule, yet the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has only fined fourteen hospitals for noncompliance out of the thousands found to not be meeting all of the rule’s requirements. When hospitals don’t post their prices, they can charge whatever they want,” wrote PRA Founder and Chairman Cynthia Fisher (above) in a letter to President Biden. Hospital medical laboratories are also required to post their prices for tests. (Photo copyright: PatientRightsAdvocate.org.)
To compile their report, PRA analysts examined the websites of 2,000 US hospitals between September 3, 2023, and January 13, 2023, and found that 1,311, or 65.5%, were not in full compliance, mostly due to “missing or significantly incomplete pricing data,” the report states.
More than 6,000 licensed hospitals operate in the US, the report notes. The group said it focused on hospitals owned by the largest US health systems.
Among the notable findings:
The 2023 report found that 98% of Kaiser Permanente’s 42 hospitals were in full compliance with the rule, but in the 2024 study, none were compliant because the hospitals began posting multiple files instead of a single file.
In total, 103 hospitals rated as noncompliant in the previous report were found to be compliant in the new analysis. Conversely, 135 hospitals previously rated as compliant were listed as noncompliant in the 2024 report.
The report lauded three hospitals for posting “exemplary files” that were “easily accessible, downloadable, machine-readable, and including all negotiated rates by payer and plan.” Those were Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass.; Christus Santa Rosa Medical Center in San Antonio; and UW Health University Hospital in Madison, Wis.
In its discussion of the findings, PRA called on CMS to step up enforcement of the pricing transparency rule. The group also wants the government to close what it describes as the “estimator tool loophole,” which allows hospitals to list non-binding price estimates and price ranges instead of concrete prices.
“Price estimator tools do not achieve the goals of price transparency policy and fundamentally undermine the intent of the regulations,” the PRA’s report contends.
In response to the 2023 PRA report, AHA Group Vice President for Public Policy Molly Smith issued the following statement, “Once again, Patient Rights Advocate has put out a report that blatantly misconstrues, ignores, and mischaracterizes hospitals’ compliance with federal price transparency regulations. The AHA has repeatedly debunked point-by-point Patient Rights Advocate’s intentionally misleading ‘reports’ on price transparency.”
Citing CMS data, Smith said that as of 2022, 70% of US hospitals had complied with two key federal rules:
One requiring hospitals to post machine-readable files with pricing information.
The other mandating a list of prices for at least 300 “shoppable” services.
More than 80% of hospitals had complied with at least one of the rules, she contended in an AHA press release.
Speaking to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, PRA Founder and Chairman Cynthia Fisher said her group performs a more in-depth study of pricing data compared with CMS.
“They did not do a comprehensive review,” she told the publication. “We do a deep dive for full compliance.”
The PRA study came on the heels of a January report from Turquoise Health that offered a rosier assessment of hospital compliance, albeit with different criteria. According to the Turquoise report, as of Dec. 15, 2023:
90.7% of 6,357 US hospitals had posted machine-readable files,
83.1% posted information about negotiated rates, and
77.3% posted cash rates.
The Turquoise Health end-to-end price transparency platform uses a 5-point system to rate the quality of hospitals’ machine-readable files and said that more than 50% scored five stars. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists may find it timely to review their lab organization’s compliance with this federal price transparency rule.
As before, the ongoing strikes continue to cause delays in critical clinical laboratory blood testing and surgical procedures
After seven months of failed negotiations, New Zealand’s blood workers, clinical laboratory technicians, and medical scientists, are once again back on strike. According to Star News, hundreds of lab workers walked off the job on May 31, 2024, with another longer walkout planned for June to protest pay disparities.
New Zealand Blood Service (NZBS) workers, who are represented by the Public Service Association or PSA (Māori: Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi), collect and process blood and tissue samples from donors to ensure they are safe for transfer.
“Our colleagues at Te Whatu Ora [Health New Zealand] are being paid up to 35% more than us and we want to be paid too. We want fair pay,” Esperanza Stuart, a New Zealand Blood Service scientist, told Star News.
“The stall in negotiations is largely attributed to a lack of movement from NZBS on the principal issue of parity with Te Whatu Ora laboratory workers rates of pay. There is currently a 21-28% pay differential between NZBS and Te Whatu Ora laboratory workers, despite both groups of workers performing essentially the same work,” NZ Doctor noted.
Health New Zealand is the country’s government-run healthcare system.
The first strike took place on May 31 from 1-5 pm. A second 24-hour strike is planned for June 4. The strikers outlined the rest of their strike schedule as follows:
The PSA union claims that the pay disparity workers are experiencing is pushing veteran workers out and complicating recruitment of new workers.
New Zealand Blood Service workers and junior doctors are once again back on the picket line to protest wage cuts and pay disparities. “I think it should be a signal that things are not right in our health system when there are multiple groups of workers going on strike simultaneously,” said PSA union organizer Alexandra Ward. Clinical laboratory workers in the US are closely monitoring the goings on in New Zealand as pressure over staff shortages and working conditions continue to mount in this country as well. (Photo copyright: RNZ.)
Clinical Laboratory Worker Strikes Ongoing in New Zealand
This is far from the first time New Zealand lab workers have hit the picket line.
In “Medical Laboratory Workers Again on Strike at Large Clinical Laboratory Company Locations around New Zealand,” Dark Daily reported on a medical laboratory workers strike that took place in 2023 in New Zealand’s South Island and Wellington regions. The workers walked off the job after a negotiated agreement was not reached between APEX, a “specialist union representing over 4,000 allied, scientific, and technical health professionals,” according to the union’s website, and Awanui Labs, one of the country’s largest hospital and clinical laboratory services providers.
This latest strike is likely to cause delays in vital surgeries and risk the nation’s critical blood supply. All of these strikes were spurred on by low pay, negative working conditions and worker burnout. Similar issues have caused labor actions in the United Kingdom’s National Health Service in recent years.
Junior Doctors Join Blood Service Workers on Picket Line
Blood service workers aren’t the only healthcare employees in New Zealand’s medical community taking action. In May about half of the nation’s junior doctors walked off the job for 25 hours to protest proposed pay cuts, NZ Herald reported.
In a letter to the nation’s public hospitals, Sarah Morley, PhD, NZBS’s Chief Medical Officer, “warned [that] even high priority planned surgeries should be deferred because they did not meet the definition of a ‘life-preserving service,’” and that “only surgeries where there is less than a 5% risk that patients may need a transfusion should be carried out,” RNZ reported.
According to an internal memo at Mercy Ascot, NZBS “did not consider cancers and cardiac operations in private hospitals to be a life-preserving service,” RNZ noted.
The situation may be more dangerous than officials are letting on, NZ Herald noted. A senior doctor at Waikato Hospital told reporters, “There are plenty of elective services cancelled today—clinics, surgery, day stay procedures etc. … And although I can only speak for my department, we are really tight for cover from SMO [senior medical officers] staff for acute services and pretty much all elective work has been cancelled. So, it’s actually pretty dire, and if next week’s planned strike goes ahead it’s going to be worse. I’d go as far as to say that it’s bordering on unsafe.”
The strike did take place, and the junior doctors went back on strike at the end of May as well, according to RNZ.
Support from Patients
Eden Hawkins, a junior doctor on strike at Wellington Hospital told RNZ that patient wellbeing is a top concern of striking workers and that patients have shown support for the doctors.
“When patients have brought it up with me on the wards or in other contexts there seems to be a bolstering sense of support around us, which is really reassuring and heartening because there’s obviously a conflict within ourselves when we strike, we don’t want to be doing that,” she said. Hawkins also makes the argument that striking workers can improve patient wellbeing in the long run. Improvement of pay and conditions could lessen staff turnover and overall improve the standard of care.
New Zealand healthcare workers haven’t been shy when it comes to fighting for the improved working conditions and fair pay. And their problems are far from unique. American healthcare workers have been struggling with worker burnout, pay disparities, high turnover as well. Clinical laboratory and other healthcare professionals in the US would be wise to keep an eye on their Kiwi counterparts.
