From: UVM Flownet [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Diana
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2000 7:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: UVMFLOWNET Digest - 10 Aug 2000 to 11 Aug 2000 (#2000-215)
In a message dated 8/12/00 12:56:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
I have a few questions about these statements.
Could you give further information on your QA work, how you correlate your
results, what studies you use for comparison and what percent stenosis you
consider positive, as well as an idea of the percentage of studies the
correlation is based upon out of total studies performed? I know the total
studies might be proprietary, but would like to know the percentage of
studies that are correlated.
Do your "strict QC procedures" include customer satisfaction surveys?
Could you provide the names of the "multi-center research facilities" you
And are you affiliated with George Lavenson, MD, RVT, or Edward Bluth, MD,
any way, or just referring to their publications? If the latter, could you
This information would help me make an informed opinion.
Why are you folks so hard on these people? Do you realize how many
labs do carotids with only 2D/color evaluations? So just because these
are advertising and not being referred by the usual "old-boy" methods,
you-all are picking on them. Why don't you ask those radiology departments
the same questions? Or those IDTF's? We all know that the ACR makes very
few demands on radiologists for accreditation of their vascular exams.
Do they hand out customer satisfaction surveys at radiology offices? What
about mobile sonography? Think about the machines they use and the new
they use to work them.
Let's be fair! I realize these folks are making a big push throughout the
country and are open to criticism, but remember the level of vascular
sonography in this country is rather low to begin with, except in vascular
labs. I have a constant struggle to keep the radiologists I work with to
stick to the criteria.