Dear Dr. NAACLS,

I am finding that it is increasingly difficult for lab managers at my clinical affiliates to feel comfortable signing off on annual reviews of affiliation agreements. Legal review channels, which appear to be the only option, are often time-consuming and costly for the program and the institution. Is there an easier way for the program and its affiliates to review these agreements annually?

Signed,

Curious Program Director

Dear Curious,

Institutions and program directors may often perceive the paperwork and time involved in demonstrating compliance with NAACLS Essentials and Standards as onerous. It is important to keep in mind that all Essentials and Standards are significant in their ability to protect the institution, the students and/or the profession. Essential/Standard 1 is substantive in its intended ability to protect both the student and the institution. Affiliation agreements that are reviewed annually assure that all parties involved are aware of any changes that may affect the administration of the program or the education of the students.

While it is true that annual review of affiliation agreements must be documented to assure that provisions of the agreement are current, this review does not have to be a burdensome, time-consuming and costly process. Annual review may consist of a phone call from the program director at the sponsoring institution to the lab manager at the clinical affiliate to review all components and confirm that provisions of the agreement are current. In order to document this, the program director may write a letter to the lab manager reiterating their conversation and asking for a response only if the lab manager does not concur.

NAACLS is aware that clinical laboratory programs are feeling the effects of current shifts in the health care industry. As a result, our volunteers try to be aware of and sensitive to the needs of programs and institutions. NAACLS attempts always to meet new situations head-on and to make them work for programs while maintaining the integrity and quality of the Essentials and Standards.

Sincerely,

Dr. NAACLS

Archives

			- Summer 2008
			Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs - Spring 2008
			Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs - Winter 2007
			Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs - Summer 2007
			Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs - Spring 2007
			Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs - Winter 2006
			Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs - Spring/Summer 2006
			Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs - Winter 2005
			Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs - Fall 2005
			Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs - Spring/Summer 2005
			Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs - Spring/Summer 2004
			Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs - Fall 2003
			Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs - Spring/Summer 2003
			Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs - Winter 2003
			Adding Clinical Affiliates - Spring / Summer 2002
			Inactive status and billing - Winter 2002
			New Standards and Self-Studies - Winter 2002
			Accreditation and approval costs - Fall 2001
			Site visit cost - Spring / Summer 2001
			Essential 5 compliance - Winter 2001
			Financial obligations of accreditation - Winter 2000
			Reactivating a Program - Winter 2000
			Suggested Reading Lists for Phlebotomy Programs - Fall 1999
			Definition of Primary Faculty - Spring / Summer 1999
			Proposed Changes for CLS/MT Essentials - Spring / Summer 1999
			Systematic program review - Winter 1999
			Annual review of affiliation agreements - Fall 1998
			Newly revised publications - Spring / Summer 1998
			Program length - Winter 1998
			CLT/MLT program increasing credit hours - Fall 1997
			Complying with 1995 Essentials - Spring 1997
			Honesty and disclosure on the part of the program - Winter 1996
			Clinical sites vs. enrichment sites - Summer 1996
			How to prepare to be a good site visitor - Spring 1996