UVMFLOWNET Archives

September 1999

UVMFLOWNET@LIST.UVM.EDU

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

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Tim Clark <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
UVM Flownet <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 27 Sep 2000 20:11:10 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (67 lines)
----- Original Message -----
From: Kelly Estes <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: Combined services


> In a message dated 09/26/1999 11:37:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << Hello! I also agree that the individual who can actually cross-train
> between
>  two ultrasound specialties is rare. The individual areas of ultrasound
are
>  diverging and to be current in the individual fields is getting to be
quite a
>  challenge. The skilled sonographer can do a normal patient, but subtle
>  pathology is another thing.
>                                           Tim Oltman RVT
>                                           Memorial Medical Center >>
>
>     I would have to disagree with this statement, yes I am registered in
more
> than one specialty, however I do not practice in all of the areas now that
I
> am registered in, but I do practice in more than one, While I am not a
jack
> of all trades, it is possible to do more than one thing well. I practice
in
> two areas of sonography and I know that I do an excellent job in both of
> them. There are many sonographers out there who do a wonderful job in more
> than one specialty.
>
> I would have to sign this, master of two (not jack of all)
> Kelly Estes RDMS, RDCS, RVT, practicing in the last two


    I have to agree with Kelly on her statements above.  I think to say that
those of us who have proficiently practiced several years in different areas
of ultrasound are not capable is simply ridiculous. If you follow this line
of thinking then those of you doing strict vascular should only be doing
segmental pressures and not carotids, or carotids and not renal arteries,
etc. It would also seem to me that those who make  these kind of statements
have never even practiced in general sonography or echocardiography. and
have no idea what it is like. I like all areas of ultrasound-it makes for
interesting days (and nights). I don't have to think "Oh God not another ABI
to do", or "Why do I get all the r/o DVT studies?"
    This leads to my second point. I hate to say it but here it goes. The
vascular community a few years ago deemed it necessary (and I agree) that
those who do vascular should be registered in order for reimbursement to
occur. Well, when everyone started to go in and become RVT'ed a new line of
thinking is starting to emerge here. "Well just because your RVT'ed it
doesn't mean that you should be doing all areas of vascular if you don't
practice it enough" (paraphrasing others). What's next people? Are we going
to be required to become registered in all areas of vascular just to hold
onto our RVT status? I don't do plethysmography or the other types of in
depth vascular studies that some of you do. I do mainly carotids and DVT
studies.(plus other areas of sonography that I am apparently not proficient
in.) I have no interest in going into these other area of vascular. I find
them abhorently boring to no end.
    Those who are determined can surely practice all areas of sonography.
What other hoops are we going to have to jump through to please you people?
Please don't say that I am not competent just because I have proven my worth
by passing 5 separate specialty exams and 3 physic exams.

Tim Clark RDMS,RDCS,RVT (and proud)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2