FEATURE
Time to Welcome the Next Generation
of Public Health Laboratory Scientists
By Nancy Maddox, MPH, writer
E
arlier this year, Matt Bradke
received letters of resignation
from two of his five staff
chemists on the same day,
losing 40% of his team in
one fell swoop. “They were looking for
something ‘new,’ which is a common
mindset these days,” said the Arkansas
Public Health Laboratory’s chemical
terrorism supervisor. “These were
excellent scientists who were not only
lost to me, but to the greater public health
laboratory (PHL) system.”
Unfortunately, Bradke’s experience is
not unique; 30% of state public health
laboratorians responding to a 2016 APHL
survey indicated an intent to leave
PHL practice within five years, and an
additional 26% indicated an intent to
leave in five to ten years.
Part of this exodus is due to the
retirement of the Baby Boom generation,
the cohort born between 1946 and
1964. But many of those reporting
plans to depart the PHL are in younger
cohorts: among the 1,337 APHL survey
respondents, 16% of Generation X (born
between 1965 and 1980) and 34% of
Millennials (born between 1981 and 1997)
indicated plans to leave within five years.
Both of Bradke’s former chemists are
under age 40; one is under age 30.
6
LAB MATTERS Fall 2018
Currently, the US graduates
about 5,000 medical laboratory
professionals annually, while
the Bureau of Labor Statistics
estimates that 12,000 new
professionals are needed each
year to meet consumer demand.”
This workforce churn is a problem. The
SHRM Foundation, an affiliate of the
Society for Human Resource Management,
reports that “turnover matters for three
key reasons:” cost, the impact on business
performance and the impact on workforce
management. Indeed, researchers
estimate that an employee resignation
may cost the employer anywhere from
90% to 200% of the departing worker’s
annual salary, once accrued paid time
off, replacement costs, new employee
training costs and work disruptions/
lost productivity are added up. Moreover,
an employee departure may have a
“contagion” effect, prompting other
workers to think about leaving too.
In its 2008 report, Retaining Talent, the
SHRM Foundation notes, “More and more
observers agree that a talent scarcity
is looming—and that this shortage will
make finding and keeping the right
people with the right skills increasingly
challenging for organizations.”
In the public health laboratory, it is fair
to say that a “talent scarcity” is already
here, necessitating new thinking about
workforce development.
Part of the problem is that clinical
laboratory practice is a “hidden
profession,” said Leah Gillis, MS, PhD,
chair of APHL’s Workforce Development
Committee and former director of
the Florida Bureau of Public Health
Laboratories (BPHL)-Miami. “People don’t
think of it,” she said.
Low demand among students, in turn,
led to the closure of over half the
nation’s accredited clinical laboratory
training programs between 1970 and
2006, constricting the pipeline for future
laboratory scientists. Currently, the US
graduates about 5,000 medical laboratory
professionals annually, while the Bureau
of Labor Statistics estimates that 12,000
new professionals are needed each year to
meet consumer demand.
A second problem is the lure of better pay
in academia and the private sector. From
2013 to 2016, the annual turnover rate
in BPHL-Miami averaged about 20%, and
the reason, said Gillis, is “the competitive
marketplace for trained and experienced
PublicHealthLabs
@APHL
APHL.org