UVMFLOWNET Archives

September 1999

UVMFLOWNET@LIST.UVM.EDU

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

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

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
UVM Flownet <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Tony Ayo <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 14:07:50 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
UVM Flownet <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (41 lines)
In a message dated 9/28/99 4:04:32 PM EST, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< Flownetters,

 Regarding some suggestions that vascular techs should not be doing any other
 kind of ultrasound because they wouldn't be proficient in either, I have to
 say that Vascular and Echocardiography certainly go together if any do. It's
 the same system, Cardiovascular, I think they go hand in hand. The anatomy
 is different, but the hemodynamics, pressure relationships, and physics are
 really in one arena. I wouldn't want to do just one or the other.
  >>

Will,

Well, I certainly am glad that I'm not the only one with these thoughts.  For
this very reason it is more beneficial for echocardiographers and vascular
technologist to be graduates from a cardiovascular program as opposed to a
sonography program and to included in Cardiology department as opposed to a
sonography or radiology departments.  In CV programs the students learn more
about the pathology and how it relates in each exam performed on patient with
CV disease. Further more, they learn how all these studies relate i.e. RVTs
working with the RCIS's to better assess the closure devices to holding
techniques, or RDCS's working with the RCIS's to better assess a patients
valvular disease or the QA of calculations,etc.  I find it quite surprising
to see many individuals forgetting or overlooking the fact that Intravascular
U/S is being performed in the Cath Labs.  However, with the increase in stent
deployment Intravascular U/S will be a main stay.  With all this interaction,
why would some RVTs and  RDCSs oppose a piece of legislation that includes
all three, yet each specialty having it's own identity?  Some even oppose
cross-training between these specialties. I for one, would prefer to train an
RDCS or an RVT in the cath lab as opposed to an RT or RN, we already have a
common educational foundation.  It takes a lot of time, patients, and effort
to train the RTs and the RNs in the cath lab, which must include basic CV
A/P!  So, why should it offend any RVT or RDCS to be included in a
legislative bill with the RCISs?


Let me know what you think.

Tony

ATOM RSS1 RSS2