Volume 39 Number 6 | December 2025
Summary
The author, a data-driven perfectionist, shares why discussing DEIB feels uncomfortable yet essential. Drawing on veterinary and clinical laboratory experience, she argues that growth requires practice, safe spaces, and grace for mistakes. She proposes using structured methods like SOAP to improve DEIB communication and metrics within ASCLS, emphasizing that avoiding the conversation is not an option.
The Article I Didn’t Want to Write
Heather Herrington, DVM, MLS(ASCP)CM, ASCLS Director
I have a confession: I hate talking about diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB).
Before anyone assembles a mob equipped with pitchforks to come at me, please let me explain. I suspect a lot of what I have to say might resonate with you.
First and foremost, I am a medical laboratory scientist. I appreciate procedures and policies and job aides. Calibration curves that fit perfectly bring me joy. My department is flow cytometry, and when I run QC on the Lyric and it’s green rather than blue, my heart smiles. Neither is a failure, but green is better. I want objective data with a standard deviation. Generally, this does not happen with DEIB discussions.
Second, my original career was as a veterinarian. This might be where some folks cannot fully relate, but bear with me. As a clinician, I wanted treatments and cures to fix the problem. When it came to interacting with patients, one of the first techniques I learned was the SOAP method. This was a strategy to evaluate a patient that could easily be passed on to a doctor on the following shift, to ensure continuity of care. As an example, each time I interacted with a patient, I’d document the following: Subjective data (lethargic, tender abdomen), Objective data (24 hours post splenectomy, febrile, elevated heart and respiratory rate, leukocytosis, anemic, hypertensive), Assessment (rule out post-operative bleed vs sepsis), Plan (abdominal ultrasound).
“No matter what, though, simply not talking about DEIB because it makes us uncomfortable isn’t a solution.”
As a methodology, it was incredibly effective. With fairly stable patients, this could be done once a day. In more critical patients, this might be performed every hour, if not more often, because that level of feedback was required. The first time I ever had to do this, it was awful. It took me forever and I was terrified I’d miss something. After I’d done it 50 times, it was substantially easier. After 1,000 times, I was still nervous because that never goes away, but confident. We’ll come back to this.
Lastly, as a child, I was in my school’s gifted and talented program. I don’t want to diminish what I gained, because it was an incredible opportunity to be surrounded by my peers. However, it left me with a tendency to be a perfectionist who vehemently dislikes looking like I am not the expert in the room. And when it comes to DEIB, if you are an active participant, as opposed to just sitting silently in the corner, you will inevitably put your foot into your mouth with such enthusiasm that you kick yourself in your uvula, probably multiple times. This is a painful part of the learning process, but it does get easier.
So here I am—a data-driven perfectionist who wants a procedure for how to move forward. (This is the part where I thought it might resonate with some folks. Anyone?)
What happens now?
I strongly dislike the phrase “embrace the suck.” I feel like it can be easily weaponized and used to force people to deal with situations that could simply be made healthier. So, let’s avoid that.
When it comes to discussing issues around DEIB, if you’re just getting your feet wet, you need to find a safe environment. You’ll need to broaden your horizons eventually, but for right now, start small. When you say something dumb, and I can almost guarantee you will, do so in a group that won’t wreck your willingness to take future risks in a less friendly setting. But keep pushing your boundaries. After I’d SOAP’ed 50 patients, it got easier for me. But you must get through those initial discussions. Give yourself grace and recognize how incredibly difficult and awkward it can be. Growth is often uncomfortable, but it’s the only way to get to a better place.
When it comes to ASCLS, I feel like the SOAP method could be utilized here. Specifically, it could be a way for the Diversity Advocacy Council, the Board of Directors, and the DEIB Taskforce to communicate with each other, especially as goals are established, revised, and improved. The feedback might not be immediate, but it could still be a tool. Right now, we have subjective data from members, and objective data can be obtained. A while back, the Board talked about having demographic data being a required field for members, with “prefer to not answer” as an option. Over time, tracking the percentage of members who choose that option could be a way to determine how safe people feel to disclose, which is valuable as an objective DEIB metric. And my hope is that ASCLS obtains additional objective metrics from the DEIB Taskforce.
The DEIB Taskforce was established a couple of years ago, and I am looking forward to seeing what comes out of that group. In the past, ASCLS has benefited immensely from taskforces, and I hope this one will continue the trend. Ideally, they will help the organization drill down on what objective data needs to be collected and evaluated, then clearly define what the goals should be and help establish a strategy to get us there.
No matter what, though, simply not talking about DEIB because it makes us uncomfortable isn’t a solution.
Heather Herrington is a Medical Laboratory Scientist in the Department of Flow Cytometry and Immunology at the University of Vermont Medical Center in Burlington, Vermont.