UVMFLOWNET Archives

April 1999

UVMFLOWNET@LIST.UVM.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Scissons, Bob" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
UVM Flownet <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:16:00 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (49 lines)
     Dear Sue and Jeff.

     The issue is not whether vascular technologists read every bit as
     good, if not better than a physician.  The issue is not trusting a
     well qualified technologist.  This issue is legality.

     Are you legally qualified to make this decision?  Are you being paid
     to make this decision?

     Do I want a high risk patient to wait hours before beginning treatment
     due to the unavailability of an interpreting physicain--no.  What I DO
     want is an available physician, who has access to all my documentation
     and performs what he is being paid to do.

     If that physician is too busy, unavailable or would like vascular
     technologists to assume this role, then let's change the law and
     reimbursement mandates.

     And thanks for worrying about my day.

     Bob






______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: On Call Interpretations
Author:  "Sue Wilson" [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] at PHS
Date:    4/8/99 1:46 PM


Bob,
Were you having a bad day?

I agree whole heartedly with Jeffs very true and real statement.  I know
many
highly skilled, well versed Vascular Technologists that read every bit as
well, if not better than a physician.  I wouldn't hesitate to let one of my
family members be treated based on a vascular preliminary report.  Do you
want the high risk pt to wait hours before beginning treatment due to the
unavailable interpreting dr?

Hats off Jeff-well stated.

Sue Wilson, AD, RVT

ATOM RSS1 RSS2