Lebow College of Business, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2024 Sep 27;19(9):e0311251. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311251. eCollection 2024.
The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) regulations of 1988 required certification of some clinical laboratory professionals but not of others. Analyzing survey data 35 years later, we explore how laboratory professionals today are inadvertently affected by those regulations, specifically their sense of professional identity and their perceptions of justice-and the consequences of those on their turnover intentions. Turnover is a major concern among laboratory professionals. Survey results show that even 35 years after the unintended disenfranchisement caused by CLIA, clinical laboratory professionals whose specialty was included in CLIA have a stronger sense of being an ingroup, expressed as positive professional identity, and had a higher assessment of there being procedural and distributive justice than those excluded in CLIA. Turnover intentions, however, were primarily a matter of negative professional identity and reduced distributive justice.
临床实验室改进修正案（CLIA）于 1988 年规定了部分临床实验室专业人员的认证要求，但并非所有人员。35 年后分析调查数据，我们探讨了当今实验室专业人员如何在不经意间受到这些法规的影响，特别是他们的职业认同感和对正义的看法——以及这些因素对他们离职意愿的影响。离职率是实验室专业人员的主要关注点。调查结果表明，即使在 CLIA 造成的意外排斥 35 年后，其专业领域包含在 CLIA 中的临床实验室专业人员仍然更强烈地将自己视为一个内群体，表现为积极的职业认同感，并且对程序正义和分配正义的评价高于 CLIA 之外的人员。然而，离职意愿主要是因为负面的职业认同感和减少的分配正义。
