Janet Means opened the meeting with introductions and history of the formation of the group. Members were reminded to visit the Bay State Collaborative’s new website at www.pointofcare.net.

The Bay State POCT Collaborative is hoping to send 2 members to the AACC meeting in Chicago, funded by supporting vendors. These members will be chosen by lottery.  At this time, we do not know the extent of the funds that will be obtained (whether or not the trip will be fully or partially funded).

back to top

Kim Gregory opened the discussion on the issue of having vendors and consultant groups attend the meetings.

Some members were concerned that vendor presence may inhibit free discussion on methods that were troublesome.  Other members felt that it was fair to allow the vendors to attend a meeting that they were sponsoring. Members also felt it was important to allow the vendors to hear specific input from their customers as well as be able to respond to specific questions in this type of group setting.

The concern with the presence of consultants was that they would be gathering information during these meetings that was previously gathered during a paid solicitation.

The group consensus was that the vendors and consultants would be allowed to attend a portion of the meeting, either the morning or afternoon.

The number of vendors would be limited to the sponsoring and/or the presenting vendor. Vendors will need to schedule their presence through one of the 4 founding members.

These parties (vendors and consultants) would then leave the meeting during the scheduled free discussion portion of the meeting.

back to top

Regulatory compliance and common deficiencies handouts were given to the members for discussion.

Members discussed the possibility of forming a volunteer  group that would go to a member’s hospital and perform a mock inspection (based on either CAP or JCAHO) upon request. This would help members in preparing for an actual inspection. 

Some members expressed concerns of confidentiality, or in case of a CAP-accredited institution, a conflict because members might perform the actual inspection at another member’s site!

A discussion of various CAP regulations, resulting in some comments that certain CAP regulations should be revised.

The group will need to revisit this concept with further discussion. Some suggestions as alternatives were to post “question of the month” on our website or allow for some type of internet dialogue.

A survey for feedback on the meeting was given to members. Additionally, an anonymous salary survey was included. Results will be given at the next meeting.

back to top