Colleagues;

I also agree with both Jim and Joe. Our job as vascular technologists is
to attempt to answer the question, "Why does this patient have a swollen
leg?" from a vascular technology point of view. Referring physicians really
appreciate it when you can provide information beyond "No DVT" and
comment on venous incompetence, presence of superficial thrombi or
Baker's cyst etc.

I am a little puzzled regarding Jim's statement on "directed
examinations" i.e. gall bladder and common duct for RUQ pain and law
suits. Surely you're not suggesting the vascular technologist is
qualified to image the pelvis for masses that could result in
intermittent extrinsic compression when the venous study is normal? Or is
this an area we need to revisit as per Tina Nack in the importance of
cross training?

Terry Case
University of Vermont