Written by
Laurie Bjerklie
Education Lead
You've probably sat through a training that felt focused more on completing documentation than building practical understanding. A supervisor hands you a policy binder, you flip through it, you sign, and you move on. The requirement is met, but the purpose of training can get lost.
But in a clinical laboratory, training that stops at documentation alone can have real consequences. Results that inform diagnoses. Specimens that can't be recollected. Patients who are waiting. Training in the lab isn't a formality. It's infrastructure.
This post launches a blog series on lab training: what it is, how it works, and how to build a program that holds up under scrutiny and hopefully helps people do their jobs better. We'll start with the fundamentals.
Why Training Matters (Beyond the Audit Trail)
Most labs think about training when something goes wrong or an accreditation survey is coming up. But training is most valuable when it's part of everyday operations, not a last-minute scramble.
Here's what's at stake:
Quality. Lab results drive clinical decisions. A phlebotomist who doesn't know the correct order of draw, a tech who misremembers the specimen stability window, an analyzer that gets run by someone who isn’t fully trained — each of these is a quality gap. Training is one of the most direct levers a lab has for preventing errors at the source.
Safety. Clinical labs handle biohazardous materials, sharp instruments, and chemical reagents. Training on exposure control, PPE use, and emergency response isn't just regulatory compliance. It protects your staff. A new employee who hasn't been trained in proper sharps disposal isn't being negligent; they're being undertrained.
Compliance. Regulatory and accreditation bodies such as CAP, The Joint Commission, and OSHA establish expectations around documented training for laboratory personnel. And they're not just looking for signatures — inspectors want to see that training covered what it was supposed to, that it happened at the right intervals, and that staff demonstrated competency. Gaps in training records are one of the most cited deficiencies in lab accreditation surveys.
But here's the thing: training that only exists to satisfy a checklist tends to be low quality, and low-quality training produces low-quality outcomes. The labs that do this well treat training as a tool for building capability, not just as a compliance task.
Knowing Who Needs Training and When It Matters Most
Short answer: everyone, and more often than you might think.
New hires are the obvious starting point. But "onboarding training" isn't one thing. It includes orientation to the lab's environment and culture, instrument-specific training for each analyzer they'll be using, procedure training tied to the specific tests they'll perform, and safety training that's often mandated by OSHA and accreditors, regardless of prior experience.
Experienced staff changing roles also need training, even if they've worked in a lab for years. A bench tech moving into a supervisory role needs leadership and compliance training. A generalist moving to a specialized department may need a full competency assessment before working independently.
All staff, on a recurring basis. CLIA requires annual competency assessment for non-waived testing personnel. Accreditation standards often go further, requiring training updates when:
- New instruments or methods are introduced
- Procedures are revised
- A quality event or corrective action identifies a knowledge or practice gap
- Regulatory requirements change
It's also worth building in periodic refresher training for topics that are easy to drift on — things like specimen rejection criteria, critical value notification, or patient identification procedures. These are high-stakes, high-frequency tasks that benefit from regular reinforcement.
Training vs. Competency vs. CE: Not the Same Thing
This is one of the most common points of confusion in lab education, and it's worth clearing up directly.
Training is the process of teaching someone how to do something. It might involve reading an SOP, watching a demonstration, attending a class, or working alongside a more experienced colleague. Training is an input.
Competency assessment is the evaluation of whether a person can actually perform a task correctly. It's the output measure. Under CLIA, competency must be assessed using specific methods, including direct observation, monitoring test results, reviewing worksheets, assessing problem-solving, and evaluating QC performance. A training record alone doesn't satisfy competency requirements.
Continuing education (CE) is structured learning designed to keep professionals current with advances in the field. For MLSs and MLTs, CE is often required for credential maintenance through organizations like ASCP or AMT. CE can support competency, but it doesn't replace it. Attending a webinar on a new testing methodology doesn't automatically mean someone is competent to run that method in your lab.
Think of it this way: training builds the skill, competency assessment confirms it, and CE keeps the professional growing over time. All three matter, but they serve different purposes and are measured differently.
Documentation: The Other Half of Training
Here's something labs sometimes learn the hard way: training that isn't documented might as well not have happened, at least from a regulatory standpoint.
Documentation is what makes training auditable, defensible, and actionable. It allows a supervisor to verify that a tech was trained before running a particular assay. It provides evidence during an accreditation survey. It protects the lab if a quality event leads to a root cause investigation. And it creates a record that travels with the employee, which matters when staff move between departments or take on new responsibilities.
Effective training documentation should capture:
- What was covered. Reference the specific SOP, procedure, or topic. Vague records like "lab orientation" don't hold up under scrutiny.
- When it happened. Dates matter for demonstrating compliance with training intervals.
- Who was involved. Both the trainee and the trainer should be documented.
- How competency was assessed. Note the method used and the outcome.
- Signatures or attestations. Both trainer and trainee acknowledgment is generally expected.
It's also worth thinking about where your records live. Paper binders in a filing cabinet are still common, but they create operational friction. Records can be misplaced, retrieval is time-consuming, and there is no reliable way to flag when refresher training is due. Lab-specific training platforms and LMS (learning management system) tools offer better tracking, automated notifications, and audit-ready reporting.
Building a Training Culture, Not Just a Training Program
The labs with the strongest training programs share a common trait: training is treated as an ongoing operational priority, not a one-time event or an accreditation obligation.
That means supervisors who are invested in staff development. It means clear ownership over who's responsible for maintaining training records. It means new procedures don't go live until staff are trained on them. And it means quality events are seen as training opportunities, not just things to be corrected and closed.
It also means recognizing that good training takes time. Squeezing a 90-minute competency assessment into the 15 minutes before a shift change isn't effective training, it's documentation without meaningful learning. Labs that take training seriously protect time for it.
Training done well is one of the most impactful investments a lab can make. It protects patients, supports staff, and keeps the lab on solid footing with accreditors. Learn how MediaLab by Vastian's Document Control solution supports laboratories in managing SOPs, policies, and training documentation.
Stay tuned as this series continues with practical guidance for every stage of laboratory training.