Some healthcare experts point to an “immunity gap” tied to the COVID-19 pandemic, while others suggest alternative theories such as temporary immunodeficiency brought on by COVID-19. In most cases, RSV causes “mild, cold-like symptoms,” but the CDC states it also can cause serious illness, especially for infants, young children, and older adults, leading to emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and an increased demand for clinical laboratory testing.
Pulmonology Advisor reported that the disease typically peaks between December and February, but hospitalizations this season hit their peak in November with numbers far higher than in previous years. In addition to infants and older adults, children between five and 17 years of age were “being hospitalized far in excess of their numbers in previous seasons,” the publication reported.
“Age by itself is a risk factor for more severe disease, meaning that the younger babies are usually the ones that are sick-sick,” pediatrician Asuncion Mejias, MD, PhD (above), a principal investigator with the Center for Vaccines and Immunity at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, told MarketWatch. Now, she added, “we are also seeing older kids, probably because they were not exposed to RSV the previous season.” Clinical laboratories in hospitals caught the brunt of those RSV inpatient admissions. (Photo copyright: Nationwide Children’s Hospital.)
Did COVID-19 Cause Immunity Gap and Surge in Respiratory Diseases?
CDC data shows that hospitalization rates linked to RSV have steadily declined since hitting their peak of 5.2 per 100,000 people in mid-November. In contrast, hospitalizations linked to the flu peaked in late November and early December at 8.7 per 100,000. Hospitalizations linked to COVID 19—which still exceed those of the other respiratory diseases—reached a plateau of 9.7 per 100,000 in early December, then saw an uptick later that month before declining in the early part of January, 2023, according to the CDC’s Respiratory Virus Hospitalization Surveillance Network (RESP-NET) dashboard.
Surveillance by the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) revealed a similar pattern: An early peak in weekly numbers for emergency room visits for RSV, followed by a spike for influenza and steadier numbers for COVID-19.
So, why was the RSV outbreak so severe?
Respiratory diseases tend to hit hardest in winter months when people are more likely to gather indoors. Beyond that, some experts have cited social distancing and masking requirements imposed in 2020 and 2021 to limit the spread of COVID 19. These measures, along with school closures, had the side effect of reducing exposure to influenza and RSV.
“It’s what’s being referred to as this ‘immunity gap’ that people have experienced from not having been exposed to our typical respiratory viruses for the last couple of years, combined with reintroduction to indoor gatherings, indoor venues, indoor school, and day care without any of the mitigation measures that we had in place for the last couple of years,” infectious disease expert Kristin Moffitt, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital told NPR.
Term ‘Immunity Debt’ Sparks Controversy
Other experts have pushed back against the notion that pandemic-related public health measures are largely to blame for the RSV upsurge. Many have objected to the term “immunity debt,” a term Forbes reported on in November.
“Immunity debt is a made-up term that did not exist until last year,” pediatrician Dave Stukus, MD, wrote on Twitter. Stukus is a Professor of Clinical Pediatrics in the Division of Allergy and Immunology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.
An article published by Texas Public Radio (TPR) suggests further grounds for skepticism, stating that “the immunity debt theory doesn’t seem to hold up to scrutiny.”
“That was sort of the great unmasking, and everybody got viral illnesses,” she told TPR. “Now we’re past that. We’ve already been through that. We should have some immunity from that and we’re having it again.”
She added that “the hospital is filled with babies who are less than a year of age who have RSV infection. Those children weren’t locked down in 2020.”
The story also noted that not all Americans complied with social distancing or masking guidelines.
“We’re not seeing [less viral illness in] states in the United States that were less strict compared to states that were stricter during mask mandates and things like that. All the states are being impacted,” Barton told TPR.
Perfect Storm of Demand for Clinical Laboratory Testing
Barton suggested that COVID-19 might have compromised people’s immune systems in ways that made them more susceptible to other respiratory diseases. For example, a study published in Nature Immunology, titled, “Immunological Dysfunction Persists for Eight Months following Initial Mild-to-Moderate SARS-CoV-2 Infection,” found that some patients who survived COVID-19 infection developed post-acute long COVID (LC, aka, COVID syndrome) which lasted longer than 12 weeks. And that “patients with LC had highly activated innate immune cells, lacked naive T and naive B cells, and showed elevated expression of type I IFN (IFN-β) and type III IFN (IFN-λ1) that remained persistently high at eight months after infection.”
Experts speaking to The Boston Globe said that multiple factors are likely to blame for the severity and early arrival of the RSV outbreak. Pediatric hospitalist and infectious disease specialist Chadi El Saleeby, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, said the severity of some cases might be tied to simultaneous infection with multiple viruses.
Clinical laboratories experienced a perfect storm of infectious disease testing demands during this tripledemic. Hopefully, with the arrival of spring and summer, that demand for lab tests will wane and allow for a return to a normal rate of traditional laboratory testing.
As clinical laboratory self-testing expands, sharing of test results with healthcare providers becomes even more essential to optimize health outcomes
Survey data collected by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation (IHPI) indicates that consumer interest in direct-to-consumer (DTC) medical self-testing is growing. In fact, DTC testing appears to be more popular ever, even among older adults who were asked how they feel about performing clinical laboratory self-testing and specimen collecting for certain illnesses.
According Michigan Medicine’s MHealth Lab, “82% of older adults say that in the future, they would be somewhat or very interested in taking a medical test at home.”
Dark Daily has written regularly about this trend and how leaders need a strategy to serve this class of consumer. That strategy could include collecting the self-test results from consumers and keeping a complete record of consumers’ clinical laboratory test results from inpatient, outpatient, and self-test settings.
“As more companies bring these direct-to-consumer [medical] tests to market and buy ads promoting them, it’s important for healthcare providers and policymakers to understand what patients might be purchasing, what they’re doing with the results, and how that fits into the broader clinical and regulatory picture,” said research scientist Jeffrey Kullgren, MD (above), Associate Professor of Internal Medicine and Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan in a press release. Clinical laboratories may find opportunities to support patients’ self-testing in tandem with the physicians who treat them. (Photo copyright: University of Michigan.)
Importance of Sharing Clinical Laboratory Self-Test Results
Individuals responding to the poll were asked only about medical laboratory self-tests they had purchased themselves either online or at a retail store. Tests provided to respondents by a healthcare provider or given to them for free were not part of the survey.
The researchers discovered that 48% of respondents had purchased at least one variety of at-home health tests in the past. The types of tests bought included:
Tests for infections other than COVID-19, such as urinary tract infections or HIV (4%), and
Other types of at-home tests, including those for allergies and food sensitivities (10%).
Approximately 82% of the respondents said they would be somewhat or very interested in taking at-home medical tests and nine out of 10 believed the test results should be shared with their doctors. But only 55% of respondents who had taken an at-home medical test and received positive results for infection other than COVID-19 had shared those results with their primary care physician.
However, 90% of respondents who had purchased a self-test for cancer screening did provide their doctors with the results.
“As we have seen in COVID-19, it’s important to share results from a home test with a provider so that it can be used to guide your care and be counted in official statistics,” said Jeffrey Kullgren, MD, Associate Professor of Internal Medicine and Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan in an IHPI press release. Kullgren, a primary care physician and healthcare researcher at Michigan Medicine and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, directed the IHPI poll.
Not All Medical Self-Tests Are Regulated by the FDA
The most prominent reason for wanting to use at-home tests was convenience and 59% of those surveyed felt that the results could be trusted.
The poll also found that 53% of older adults believe at-home medical tests are regulated by the federal government, which isn’t always the case. Many at-home medical tests are reviewed by the federal US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but not all such tests receive full FDA review.
The FDA, however, offers an online, searchable database consumers can use to determine if a certain over-the-counter test is regulated by the FDA.
“Home tests can be a convenient way for older adults to check if they have an illness, such as COVID-19” stated Indira Venkat, Senior Vice President, AARP Research in the press release. “But consumers should make sure they know whether the test they are taking is FDA-approved, and how their health or genetic information might be shared.”
Other interesting outcomes of the research include:
The purchasing of at-home COVID-19 tests was highest among those between the ages of 50 and 64 when compared to the 65 to 80 age group, but there were no age differences for other types of at-home tests.
Respondents who are married or have who more education and/or higher household incomes were more likely to have purchased at-home tests.
Blacks were less likely to buy at-home medical tests than Whites or Hispanics.
Interest for at-home tests was higher among women than men.
Advertising swayed 44% of purchasing respondents to buy a DNA test and 11% to buy a cancer screening test.
Are DTC Home Tests as Accurate as Clinical Laboratory Testing?
At-home medical self-testing and sample collection is becoming accepted and established with consumers and the medical community, which is drawing attention to the accuracy of these tests and how clinical laboratories are being affected by the trend.
The findings of this recent survey of older consumers is just the latest evidence that at-home self-testing for everything from COVID to cancer is here to stay. Clinical laboratories should be looking for ways to serve this patient population and the physicians who treat them.
But insurers are complying under the Transparency in Coverage regulations and that is where discrepancies in the disclosure of prices to the public have been found
Despite federal regulations requiring hospitals to publicly post their prices in advance of patient services, some large health systems still do not follow the law. That’s according to a new Transparency in Coverage Report from PatientRightsAdvocate.org (PRA), which found that some hospitals are “flouting” the federal Hospital Price Transparency Rule.
By cross-referencing price disclosures by hospitals and insurance companies, which are required to publish the amounts they pay for hospital services under federal Transparency in Coverage regulations, PRA, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, discovered the healthcare providers’ noncompliance with federal transparency regulation.
“Prices revealed in newly released health insurance company data files show some major American hospitals are omitting prices from their required price disclosures in violation of the federal hospital price transparency rule,” according to the PRA report.
Hospitals conceal their prices because they don’t want people to know how much rates for the same procedure vary,” Sally C. Pipes (above), President and CEO of Pacific Research Institute, wrote in the Washington Examiner. “A lack of price transparency benefits hospitals but not patients or payers. The federal government should not let providers get away with flouting the law,” she added. Clinical laboratories are also required under federal law to publish their prices. (Photo copyright: The Heartland Institute.)
“PatientRightsAdvocate.org discovered several instances in which prices were omitted from the hospital files but appeared in the insurance company files,” noted the PRA report. “These discrepancies indicate that some large hospitals are not posting their complete price lists as required by the hospital price transparency rule.”
The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) says hospitals must post standard charges in a single machine-readable digital file, and display in a consumer-friendly way, “300 shoppable services with discounted cash prices, payer-specific negotiated charges, and de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated charges.”
But according to the PRA report and news release, the study team discovered that this was not always the case. Below are examples from the report of some of the discrepancies between prices on a hospital’s website and what payers’ websites showed as prices involving those same hospitals:
PRA’s report casts light on inconsistencies between what insurers and providers share with the public on prices.
“Today’s report confirms that hospitals are hiding prices from patients and [this] calls into question their public assertions that individual prices don’t exist for many of the services they provide,” said PRA Founder and Chairman Cynthia Fisher in the news release.
“The data made possible by the [federal] Transparency in Coverage (TiC) rule reveals prices negotiated with insurers that hospitals did not disclose in the machine-readable files required by law. Our report is just the tip of the iceberg of what the staggering amount of data in TiC disclosures will reveal,” she added.
Ascension, HCA Note Compliance with CMS Rule
For its part, Ascension, in a statement to Healthcare Dive, confirmed it is complying with the CMS rule and offers consumers tools to estimate costs.
“We’re proud to be a leader in price transparency,” Ascension said.
HCA told Healthcare Dive it has “implemented federal transparency requirements in January 2021 and provides a patient payment estimator in addition to posting third-party contracted rates.”
Advice for Clinical Laboratories Sharing Test Prices
Hospitals flouting the federal transparency rule is not new. Dark Daily has covered other similar incidences.
Clinical laboratory leaders who oversee multiple labs in healthcare systems may benefit from advice about CMS rule compliance shared in HealthLeaders.
Post a separate file for each provider.
Be “cognizant” of different sets of standard charges for multiple hospitals under one license.
“Today’s healthcare consumer wants to know prices in advance of service. That’s because many have high deductible health insurance plans of, say, $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 for a family as the annual deductible,” said Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report.
Clinical laboratory tests may not be the most expensive healthcare service. But they are critical for high-quality hospital care and outcomes. Increasingly, patients want to know in advance how much they will cost. This is true of patients of all generations, from Baby Boomers to Generations X, Y, and Z.
Though burnout due to COVID-19 pandemic plays a role, the future is bright for pathology assistants
Anatomic pathology laboratories are expanding the role of Pathologist Assistants (PathAs) beyond the traditional duties. What does that mean for the future of this critical position? In an article she penned for the College of American Pathologists (CAP), certified pathologists’ assistant Heather Gaburo, MHS, PA(ASCP)cm, explains how PathA responsibilities are evolving to meet the needs of today’s surgical pathology suite and anatomic pathology service.
The PNPL in Woodbridge, Connecticut, funded the study and worked with various pathology laboratories to gather the information presented.
In her paper published in the Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, certified pathologists’ assistant Heather Gaburo (above), wrote “PathAs can fill a wide variety of nontraditional roles in hospital-based and private practice laboratory settings. In the current state of pathology, PathAs are underused in these roles.” (Photo copyright: American Association of Pathologists’ Assistants.)
Traditional Duties of PathAs
The job of the PathA was developed in the 1970s to fill a gap in the pathology workforce. Traditional duties for PathAs include, but are not limited to, tasks such as:
Macroscopic examination (grossing process) and dissection of surgical specimens,
Assisting with intraoperative frozen sections and autopsies.
However, this role is expanding. According Gaburo, the 2021 AAPA membership survey showed that PathAs duties have grown to include tasks such as:
Why have the duties of PathAs broadened so much? According to Gaburo, the COVID-19 pandemic had much to do with it.
COVID-19 Pandemic Leads to New Duties/Burnout for PathAs
“The pandemic increased public awareness of the clinical laboratory by highlighting essential clinical workers with frequent spotlights on COVID-19 testing and staffing shortages, as well as understaffing in the anatomic space,” Gaburo said in an exclusive interview with Dark Daily.
“COVID-19 caused delays in cancer screening and non-emergency surgery, which led to a backlog of cases and delayed cancer presentations. Some studies have shown an increase in late-stage cancer presentations, which can be more time-consuming to diagnose in pathology. Both factors are contributing to higher traditional workloads for PathAs,” she added.
The pandemic, according to Gaburo, also led to increased duties for PathAs. “The pandemic also provided PathAs with opportunities to assist in developing new protocols such as: handling surgical specimens from COVID-19 patients, enhanced safety procedures in the laboratory, and autopsies on SARS-CoV-2 patients.”
But, with this expansion of duties also comes with the threat of burnout. “I believe the pandemic contributed to the burnout of PathAs in several ways. Many labs faced staffing challenges as employees contracted COVID-19, straining the existing workforce,” she noted.
“Some personnel struggled to balance their jobs as essential workers with providing virtual schooling for their children. Workloads increased when surgical cases resumed to catch up with the patient backlog. The incoming specimens were more complex due to delays in screening and advanced disease at presentation,” Gaburo added.
Job retention is an issue also explored by Gaburo in her Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine paper. “Almost half of the laboratory professionals (including PathAs) surveyed by the ASCP addressed being underappreciated, especially compared with nursing and other allied health professionals.” She goes on to cite the risks of worker burnout, including adverse errors that could lead to liability of healthcare organizations.
Gaburo notes that burnout was an issue for PathAs before the COVID-19 pandemic “possibly due to a lack of job diversity and opportunities for growth,” she said. But the COVID-19 pandemic provided a unique opportunity for many PathAs, as well.
“The pandemic, while it brought challenges, also provided opportunities for PathAs to step into new, temporary roles early on when surgeries were limited, and clinics were closed. This job diversification may have helped develop resiliency and decrease burnout.”
PathA Shortage and Educational Opportunities
The COVID-19 pandemic required the entire healthcare industry to be flexible and expand in a short time. This, according to Gaburo, contributed to the growth of PathAs’ duties and could have helped with job retention as well.
When asked whether there was a shortage of PathAs in clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups, Gaburo said, “Though there are many open jobs for PathAs, our profession is fortunate in that we are not experiencing the same type of shortage as other laboratory professions. Instead of struggling to fill vacant positions, it seems many of the PathA openings are newly created positions. In fact, the new graduate employment rate of most, if not all, PathA programs is 100%.”
However, pandemic-related stresses and burnout have led to a shortage of anatomic pathologists, Gaburo notes. But in this she also sees new opportunities for PathAs.
“This is an area where the utilization of pathologists’ assistants has value for pathologists. PathAs, with support and mentorship, can provide assistance in many areas at a lower cost than pathologists, freeing up the pathologists to devote more time to patient care activities.”
As Gaburo concludes in her paper, “PathAs are qualified allied health professionals capable of handling a wide range of nontraditional roles in the pathology laboratory.” She goes on to note how practices can choose to mentor and support their PathAs by offering them mentorship and diverse educational opportunities.
“Over the last 15 years, the number of training programs for PathAs has more than doubled, from seven to 15. Class sizes have also increased to meet the growing demand for admission, which has become more and more competitive.
“The curricula include basic laboratory management classes, and some programs are considering incorporating ‘Business of Pathology’ courses as well. Many programs have expanded their clinical rotation sites, leading to opportunities for experienced PathAs to move into nontraditional teaching roles by becoming preceptors. However, there is still a need for more high-level administrative training opportunities,” Gaburo wrote.
Job satisfaction and retention increases quality for everyone involved. As clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups continue to support COVID-19 testing on top of traditional laboratory requirements, pathologist assistants have proven—and will continue to prove—what a valuable asset they are to clinical pathology practices.
NIH program could lead to new diagnostic biomarkers for clinical laboratory tests across a more diverse segment of US population
In another milestone in the US National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) plan to gather diverse genetic information from one million US citizens and then use that data to inform clinical care in ways consistent with Precision Medicine, the NIH’s All-of-Us Research Program announced in a news release it has “begun returning personalized health-related DNA results” to more than 155,000 study participants.
In addition, those participants who request them will receive genetic reports that detail whether they “have an increased risk for specific health conditions and how their body might process certain medications.”
The All-of-Us program, which began enrolling people in 2018, is one of the world’s largest—if not the largest—project of its kind. It could result in more than a million human whole genome sequences to drive medical research and speed discoveries. Study findings, for example, may produce new biomarkers for clinical laboratory tests and diagnostics.
In 2020, the All-of-Us program “had begun releasing genetic results for ancestry and a small number of nonclinical genetic traits,” according to GenomeWeb. Now, the program is taking on the greater challenge of sharing health-related genetic test results directly with its participants.
“We really wanted to make sure that we are providing a responsible return to our participants,” Anastasia Wise, PhD, All-of-Us Program Director for the Genetic Counseling Resource, told GenomeWeb. “They might get information that’s unexpected,” she explained.
So far, about 10,000 people received the NIH’s invitation and 56% have shown interest in receiving their genetic test results, GenomeWeb noted.
“Knowledge is powerful,” said Josh Denny, MD (above), Chief Executive Officer, NIH All-of-Us Research Program, in an NIH news release. “By returning health-related DNA information to participants, we are changing the research paradigm, turning it into a two-way street—fueling both scientific and personal discovery that could help individuals navigate their own health,” he added. The NIH’s research could lead to new clinical laboratory precision medicine diagnostics for chronic diseases across a more diverse segment of the US population. (Photo copyright: National Institutes of Health.)
Two Types of Genetic Health Reports
Study participants who provided a blood sample and gave their consent to receiving genomic information may also receive a Hereditary Disease Risk report that includes 59 genes and genetic variants linked to serious and “medically actionable” health conditions.
About 3% to 5% of participants will have findings suggesting a high risk for a genetic disease such as breast and ovarian cancers as indicated by BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, Medical Xpress reported.
“I kind of shudder to think about what could happen if I hadn’t known this [finding that she has the BRCA2 gene],” said Rachele Peterson, All-of-Us Chief of Staff, who spoke to the Associated Press about her receiving own Hereditary Disease Risk report.
Participants can also choose to receive an All-of-Us Medicine and Your DNA report with insights on seven genes that affect how specific medications are metabolized. This pharmacogenetics report is important for those who could learn, for example, that they have a 50% to 60% greater risk of a second heart attack when they continue to take the standard medication, as opposed to a different medication, Medical Xpress noted.
“The information on metabolizing medication can be particularly important for people who need treatment after a heart attack,” Josh Denny, MD, Chief Executive Officer, NIH All-of-Us Research Program, told Medical Xpress.
“Such transparency of genetic information about a massive group—as well as the genetic information on individuals—can be used to improve patient care and clinical outcomes,” said Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report.
“The program provides a roadmap for other healthcare organizations to follow. And this is useful strategic knowledge for clinical laboratory leaders to understand and incorporate into their plans to support precision medicine with genetic testing and whole human genome sequencing,” Michel added.
Rich Genetic Data Across a More Diverse Population
As to its goal to reflect national diversity, NIH reported about 80% of All-of-Us participants reside in communities that have been unrepresented in medical research, and that 50% are part of a racial or ethnic minority group.
By combining this information into a single database, the MVP promises to advance knowledge about the complex links between genes and health, according to an MVP news release.
Researchers tapping All-of-Us and MVP data may ultimately produce enlightening and impactful study findings, which could enable clinical laboratories to perform new diagnostic precision medicine tests that identify diseases early and save lives.
It’s not only medical laboratory technicians, healthcare workers across the board continue to deal with extreme pressures that preceded the pandemic
Burnout in healthcare is a constant problem, especially in overstressed clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups. To raise awareness about the plight of medical laboratory technicians (MLTs) and other frontline workers in the healthcare industry, a former lab tech recounted her experience during the COVID-19 pandemic that led to burnout and her departure from the lab profession during 2020-2021.
Suzanna Bator was formerly a laboratory technician with the Cleveland Clinic and with MetroHealth System in Cleveland, Ohio. Her essay in Daily Nurse, titled, “The Hidden Healthcare Heroes: A Lab Techs Journey Through the Pandemic,” is a personalized, human look at the strain clinical laboratory technicians were put under during the pandemic. Her story presents the quandary of how to keep these critical frontline healthcare workers from experiencing burnout and leaving the field.
“We techs were left unsupported and unmentored throughout the pandemic. No one cared if we were learning or growing in our job, and there was little encouragement for us to enter training or residency programs. We were just expendable foot soldiers: this is not a policy that leads to long-term job retention,” she wrote.
Clinical laboratory leaders and pathology group managers may find valuable insights in Bator’s essay that they can use when developing worker support programs for their own clinical laboratories and practices.
“The pressure never let up. No matter how mind-numbing and repetitive the work could get, we had to work with constant vigilance, as there was absolutely no room for error,” Suzanna Bator wrote in Daily Nurse. Burnout in clinical laboratories is an ongoing problem that increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Photo copyright: Daily Nurse.)
Hopeful Beginnings and Eager to Help
During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, folks in every industry stepped up. Fashion designers tasked their haute couture seamstresses with making personal protective equipment (PPE), neighbors brought food and supplies to their immunosuppressed or elderly neighbors, and healthcare workers took on enormous workloads outside of their own departments and traditional responsibilities, The New York Times reported.
When Bator joined the Cleveland Clinic’s COVID-19 team she had no clinical lab tech accreditations. Nevertheless, she and 12 other non-accredited hires were quickly put onto the second and third shifts to keep up with SARS-CoV-2 test demands.
“In the beginning, I was so happy to be helping and working during the pandemic. I felt proud to be on the front lines, honing my skills and discovering what it was like to work under intense pressure. My work was good even when the work was hard. There was no room for error and no time to waste.”
At the Cleveland Clinic, Bator and her colleagues did not experience the equipment and supply shortages other clinics faced, at least not in the beginning of the pandemic. That began to change in late 2020.
Unrelenting Pace and Supply Shortages as Pandemic Grew
Despite their state-of-the-art equipment at the Cleveland Clinic, problems began to arise as the pandemic wore on.
“The machines we worked on were never meant to be run at this intensity and would frequently break down during the second shift. Those of us on the third shift were then left to deal with these problems despite our lack of technical training. Even worse, there were no supervisors on staff to help us problem-solve or troubleshoot, which only added to the pressure,” Bator noted.
And the high demand for testing left little room for new lab techs to hone any other skills.
“The pressure never let up. No matter how mind-numbing and repetitive the work could get, we had to work with constant vigilance, as there was absolutely no room for error,” she added.
Eventually, Bator left the Cleveland Clinic for a county hospital to “get off the graveyard shift and begin working on more than just COVID testing,” she wrote. However, soon after her move the Omicron variant hit, and she was once again running COVID tests.
Six months later she had had enough. She burned out and “dropped out of the industry after only a few years,” she wrote. And she was not the only one.
“The [Cleveland] Clinic began to hemorrhage techs who left for better opportunities at different hospitals or in different fields. Of my original 15-or-so-member team two years ago, only four remain in the same department, and only about half remain in the clinical lab field at all,” Bator wrote.
Burnout in Clinical Laboratories
Worker burnout is a state of mental and/or physical exhaustion caused by a heavy workload. Those experiencing burnout may feel emotionally overwhelmed, anxious, and depressed. Burnout can manifest in physical, mental, and emotional symptoms.
Burnout in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is an issue affecting all facets of healthcare. According to Forbes, a 2022 report by Elsevier Health found that 47% of US healthcare workers plan to leave their current role in the next two to three years, in some measure due to the enormous pressures healthcare workers face.
And workers are not the only ones paying attention to burnout. On May 23, 2022, the United States Surgeon General, Vice Admiral Vivek Murthy, MD, issued a Surgeon General’s Advisory highlighting the need to address worker burnout.
“COVID-19 has been a uniquely traumatic experience for the health workforce and for their families, pushing them past their breaking point,” Murthy noted. “Now, we owe them a debt of gratitude and action. And if we fail to act, we will place our nation’s health at risk. This Surgeon General’s Advisory outlines how we can all help heal those who have sacrificed so much to help us heal.”
Healthcare workers were facing high levels of burnout before 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic only made the issue worse. The National Academies of Medicine (NAM) reported in 2019 that worker burnout had reached a “crisis level,” and that during the pandemic, half of all healthcare workers reported symptoms of at least one mental health condition.
Training Programs Needed to Offset Worker Shortages and Retain Staff
As Bator reported in Daily Nurse, “The American Society of Clinical Pathology (ASCP)—the largest association for [medical] laboratory professionals—has stressed the importance of promoting MLS/MLT programs to produce certified, well-trained lab professionals, to fill major staffing shortages. However, filling the positions is only one piece of the puzzle.”
Bator points out that there wasn’t space nor time for guidance or advancement with the sheer volume of SARS-CoV-2 testing they had to complete.
“Late last year, during the worst of the Omicron variant surge, the only people I could commiserate with were the nurses who thanked us for running their pediatric ICU tests first,” she said. “They understood what we meant when we said we were drowning and stopped calling the lab to pester us for results because they knew that the positivity rate in Cuyahoga County was the third highest in the country and that the entire system was overwhelmed.”
Suzanna Bator is just one early-career worker among many healthcare professionals who have experienced this type of burnout due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As made evident by her piece, the pathology and clinical laboratory professions are losing workers who otherwise might have entered training programs to further their careers in those fields.
The issue of worker burnout is not just a temporary stressor on the clinical laboratory industry. Both worker burnout and staffing shortages in labs preceded the pandemic and will have continuing long-term effects unless steps are taken to reverse it.
