We can work it out (Musings on transfusion association annual meetings)

Last revised: 2 June 2019  (See ADDENDUM below)

INTRODUCTION
As the CSTM annual conjoint meeting with CBS and Héma-Québec is now on May 29 to June 2, I thought I'd muse on annual meetings in general. As readers of this blog will know, I've had a long career in transfusion starting at the bottom without qualifications but being incredibly fortunate in my employers.

I'm an outlier of sorts with atypical views and being an oldster gives me the freedom to say things that colleagues likely would not. Perhaps many may disagree with me on this blog's points. That's okay too as I'd be concerned if all, even most, agreed with me. Included are tidbits I think contribute to quality presentations at meetings.

Professional associations exist to serve and represent the interests of their members, which applies to the three associations I belonged to during my long career as a medical lab technologist turned educator: AABB, CSMLS (includes IFBLS membership), CSTM. The latter two are Canadian organizations, the first American but AABB has branched out to become international, though its headquarters remains in the USA as does its primary focus.

The blog's title is based on a 1965 Beatles ditty, We Can Work It Out.

LESSONS LEARNED
Over the years I've attended many meetings, aka conventions and congresses. With a few exceptions most of all those attended were held in Canada by CSMLS or CSTM. One memorable one (IFBLS) was held in Oslo in 1996. Why memorable? Most of all it was because I met a Norwegian med lab technologist who worked in transfusion and we've been good pals ever since.

To me, that's Lesson #1 of what's important at annual meetings. It's not so much the scientific presentations you hear and what, if anything, you learn from them (commit to long-term memory). Face it, if you read professional journals you're pretty up-to-date on the latest and greatest. During my career the AABB journal Transfusion and similar were kept in the bathroom as a welcome distraction or read while basking outside in Canada's all too short spring, summer, fall.

Of course, I suspect not many transfusion technologists and nurses in the trenches regularly read journals. Take a peak at the index of Transfusion 2019;59(5). How many articles would you read let alone understand?

Today, keeping current also applies to those on social media platforms like Twitter where journals and associations alert folks to the latest developments. But how many of you use Twitter?

LESSON #1: The most valuable benefits of meetings are the interactions with peers, sharing experiences and knowledge that's not in journals or textbooks, including the friendships made. Often such interchanges are shared during a night-out over a meal or glass of wine/beer. Typically, chitchat involves practical and tacit knowledge only gained from experience.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pretty certain that Lesson #2 will be familiar to medical lab technologists/scientists world-wide, at least those lucky enough to attend meetings:

• So many of the presentations at transfusion association meetings are by physicians and researchers, though it's slowly changing. 

What this means is the information and research presented, though significant, is often not particularly meaningful nor of immediate use to those in the trenches, whether transfusion med lab techs, nurses, physicians without university appointments. And being able to use new meaningful learning right away is important to busy adult learners. In continuing education and professional development courses it's critical because 'adults vote with their feet' as the cliché goes.

Indeed, I wonder in the age of the smart phone how many meeting attendees during presentations  spend most of the time checking e-mail, texting and browsing. Suspect it's far too many. Best take is they're live tweeting but no, that's not it.

Reality is that much transfusion research is esoteric, of interest mainly to those involved in similar, narrow research.  Kudos to CSTM for its full day of workshops relevant to front-line professionals.

LESSON #2: Many presentations at scientific meeting are of minimal value to attendees, especially those who work in the trenches on the front-lines of transfusion, those in the lab and those on the wards. If you're a PhD or MD/PhD researcher and the topic coincides with your interests, the talks are no doubt fascinating.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lesson #3 relates to a sad fact of life for many in the trenches. Years ago funding for CE/CPD was scaled back significantly. The result is fewer and fewer attend national meetings (unless local), let alone international ones. Today the cost of airfare and hotels is increasingly exorbitant.

Who can afford it? My guess includes

• Physicians and researchers who get funding support or earn large salaries, along with those in senior positions. 
• Bench technologists and front-line transfusion nurses not so much. 
• Educators and those in health profession unions who get discretionary funds to use for CE/CPD but the funding wouldn't come close covering travel and hotel costs to attend meetings outside their locale. 
• Some associations fund invited presenters, but not all.
• An association's board of directors, whose members are volunteers and put in much dedicated time and a tiny perk is funding to attend meetings.

Many transfusion associations/organizations now offer local CE/CPD events across the country or provincially, including CSTM's Education Days. And thanks to the Internet, technology makes webcasts and podcasts possible.

LESSON #3: To what extent have annual meetings become a place for the 'elites' to meet and interact?  By elites, I mean those professionals fortunate to have funding or be wealthy enough to attend if the meeting is not in their locale and schmooze with other elites? It's a question to which I do not have an evidence-based answer, yet suspect it may be true.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lesson #4 has been a pet peeve of mine for ages and relates to the quality of presentations at meetings by the biggies, the so-called 'thought leaders' of a profession. My experience is presentation quality is often awful, bordering on pathetic.

It's one reason I'm so glad that Medical Laboratory Science at the University of Alberta has a communications course that includes how to give presentations and gives students opportunities to practice the skills, including presenting their research projects.

Wish all MSc/PhD graduate and medical education programs included such a course. About physicians, my experience is, if a communication course or any professional development program, is not given by a physician, they devalue it. Apparently only physicians can teach physicians.😞

To me the biggest, common presentation failures include NOT doing the following, relevant to physicians, especially. BTW, the points are basic, equivalent to Presentation 101 courses.

• Begin with a personal anecdote to grab audience attention immediately and get them to appreciate your authenticity, that you've 'been there, done that,' and dig their professional realities.
• Explain up-front why the talk is relevant to the audience.
• For gawd sake, don't keep it a secret.
• Briefly outline what the talk is about, perhaps even say, if that's not what you expected, feel free to exit now. 
• Shows you  respect the needs of audience.
• Mention there will be time at the end for questions, if the person who introduced you did not.
• Distribute handouts at the end and say that up front. 
• Include your speaker notes in handouts so the audience has something substantive to take away.
• In the early days of Powerpoint I don't know how many handouts I brought home from meetings, including making notes on each slide myself, that were all but useless and eventually tossed in a trash can.
• Fact: If you distribute handouts at the start of a talk, the audience will concentrate on them, not what you are saying.
• Use mostly graphics in the presentation vs bullet points. It's a way to get folks to listen to what you say.
• If you use a few slides with bullets, do NOT use complete sentences and, regardless, NEVER read the points word for word unless you want to put the audience to sleep.
• Forget about using any busy slides you have where the writing is minuscule and unreadable.
• Just don't, no matter what.
• Saves you the trouble of cynically apologizing for it being busy.
• Because obviously you included the slide anyway, thus disrespecting your audience's intelligence. 
• Throughout the talk refer to the experiences of colleagues and audience members you recognize, and sprinkle the presentation with their work.
• It's not all about you, it's about those who helped you succeed.
• Self-deprecating humour, if sincere, is appreciated by listeners.
• Focus on key points only.
• Though tempting, do not succumb to presenting all your data and conclusions.
• Few viewers are as obsessed with the topic as you are.
• The fewer key learning points, the more they will be remembered because of info overload.
• At talk's end, briefly tell the audience what you told them and reinforce why it's significant and relevant to them. 
• Thank the audience for their attention and thank conference organizers for inviting you.
• With questions at the talk's end, even if you get snarky questions (yep, there are always all-about-me colleagues), try to be gracious, realizing that to most in the audience, the asker is showing themselves in a bad light and you are better than them.
• Taking the high road always wins.

LESSON #4: Physicians and researchers, at least try to learn how to present well. I realize you could care less as you've gotten away with pathetic presentations forever and have zero motivation to change. But please try to be better because it has many rewards, adds to your reputation.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDENDUM

First a disclosure. Folks, for most of my career I was one of the fortunate 'elites' I referenced earlier, mainly by virtue of volunteer positions for professional associations, being an invited speaker at conferences where organizers funded travel and hotel costs, or as a perk of being an educator at a university. 

One thing I noticed in those days of yore versus today's national meetings is that now there seem to be fewer young attendees. Perhaps it's my imagination or just that all professions are aging and those in senior positions are older than before. Or maybe not.

While I hesitate to mention this, one reason could be that younger med lab technologists/scientists may not be as keen as we were in what I call the 'golden age of immunohematology.' Perhaps when considering annual fees, younger folks and many older ones too, wonder if it's worth it, questioning the benefits of membership. That is, they first ask 

• What will the association and being a member do for me? vs
• What can I do for my association?
• How can I give back to my profession?

Or it could be that membership for some has become a financial burden. For example, in Canada registration with provincial regulatory colleges is compulsory for med lab techs,e.g. CMLTO annual fees. In contrast, membership in professional associations is voluntary and annual fees are a bargain in my opinion, e.g., CSTM $120 and CSMLS $167. But if you worked in Ontario and belonged to all three, the total would be $671.20. To me, that's just a tiny percentage of annual salaries and the benefits are many. 

Which brings me Julie Hendry's presentation. Julie is this year's recipient of the CSTM's  Buchanan Award, who included this slide at the end of her talk (click to enlarge - Julie's slide was tweeted by Geraldine Walsh and Clare O'Reilly on Twitter): 

Julie's challenge is a great one for CSTM members and members of all professions. We in the health professions are so lucky. 

FOR FUN
I chose this Beatles song because its lyrics fit the blog's content.

• We can work it out

As always, comment are most welcome (and there are some below).