"as per Tina NAck and the importance of cross training"....
Speaking as Tina Nack, I am curous what my percieved position is on the
issue of cross training as suggested by that comment. I have had to cross
train general techs on a regular basis to keep the lab at Jefferson
running, and cross trained into general studies to make myself a better
teacher, because it was possible at my job and it seemed foolish not to,
and because I enjoy mastering new skills. As a result, I have been asked
on multiple occaisions to speak or write or offer advice on the topic. I
am not a crusader for or against crosstraining, but I acknowledge it's
existence, and have some experience in it.
I do believe that our patients are best served if we have some type of
common sense algorithm written or less formal, to deal with masses we
encounter (visualize) incidentally during the course of an exam. It can
be as simple as reporting it's location and size and suggesting
clinical correlation, or correlation with a formal US or other imaging
study. It would also be nice if the examiner could characterize the
mass(simple, complex, enhancing, attenuating, poorly defined borders, well
defined borders) however not all vascular techs are comfortable with
this. To ignore, not document and not report the presence of a mass or
multiple masses which which you encounter but cannot identify seems to
present an ethical delima in terms of patient care. Most vascular techs,
I believe, report masses they are framiliar with such as lymph nodes and
baker's cysts, and are less sure of how to handle less common,
unframiliar masses, especially if their studies are being read by doc's
who cannot provide guidance on such findings.
As for extending an exam into the pelvis to search for a mass, I
would not expect that as part of an lower extremiyt venous exam,
particularly a normal exam (imaging and doppler) wether the tech was
cross trained or not. I cannot speak for anyone else.
Tina Nack Woods