Clinical Doctorate in Laboratory Science

Extract

I found the two articles concerning doctorate level clinical laboratory scientists (CLS) (Doig K, The Case for the Clinical Doctorate in Laboratory Science, Clinical Laboratory Science 2005;18(3):132-6, and Fritsma GA, A Professional Doctorate in Clinical Laboratory Science?—Not so Fast, Clinical Laboratory Science 2005;18(3):137-8), interesting and at the same time troublesome. The pros and cons of doctoral degrees in clinical laboratory science has been the subject of debate for the better part of the past 20 years.

This debate is akin to the chicken vs. the egg argument—which came first? Do we create doctoral CLSs (DCLSs) and have them go forth to find a purpose within the healthcare team or do we establish a purpose and then create DCLSs to fill the void? At this time we seem to have a potential product without a market.

The comparison between the role of the DCLS and the role of the PharmD is weak at best. The PharmD directly interacts with the clinician, nurse, laboratory, and patient in finding the right drug or combination of drugs to achieve a particular outcome. This is more than a consultative role. They are engaged in direct patient care.

The DCLS, as described, is a purely consultative role with the clinician, advising on the best test to order or providing interpretive information pertaining to the test results. Is this not the role of the clinical pathologist? In fact, I believe it is, but unfortunately it is not done well or consistently in many facilities which has been…