Hi Everyone: Here's my experience with this subject. I have worked in
four settings: first one was a Lab set up in the (believe it or not)
Respiratory Therapy Dept. in Tyler, Texas.. I still don't know how that
particular placement happened, but it was my first experience. I then came
to CA and worked in a Neurology Dept. This made sense to me, because of
the great extent of neurological symptoms we encounter in this field. I
would also like to mention we worked closely with the Vascular Surgery
Dept., but a neurologist read the studies. ( Oh, in my first lab, studies
were read by a vascular surgeon...we learned together). I then went onto
a teaching site, and we had a group of technologists who did mobile work
also. These studies were read by a group of cardiologists. I then went
into a Cardiopulmonary Dept., but moved under the Radiology Dept. almost
immediately. In each case I found them all "ideal" in some ways, not so in
others. I think I always worked best when the reading doc was
knowledgeable about the nuances of our particular field, and would work
closely with me, respect my knowledge, opinion, diagnosis, etc. The only
time I really questioned the reality of predicting percent stenosis, was
when the vessel was measured with calipers, and the residual lumen placed
into a category of stenosis. To sum it up, I think just about any of these
situations were fine. I certainly learned a lot about hospital politics,
and territorial issues.
Shirley McLean, RVT
----------
> From: Kathy Palmieri <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Combining services of vascular labs to Radiology
> Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 11:32 AM
>
> Dear Flownet, This must be "in the air" as today, I have gotten two calls
> about the benefits and disadvantages of combining vascular labs to
Radiology
> departments. I know this is a sensitive subject, but I am curious as to
your
> opinions, advice, pros and cons to this issue. I have worked in both
arenas
> and also during one of the mergers. I have my opinions, but would like
some
> objectivity. Is this another plan that looks good on paper, but leads to
the
> demise of well established practices? Let's hear it... Thanks for your
help.
> Kathy Palmieri, RVT
> =============================================================
> Kathleen Palmieri, RVT
> Cardiovascular Technology Resources
> Skaneateles, New York
> http://www.krpaccreditation.com
|
