Print

Print


In a message dated 8/28/00 8:17:35 PM EST, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< At the town hall meeting (or whatever it was called) they brought up a very
 interesting issue. The Department of Labor (DoL) will be updating it's
 classifications next year. Currently ultrasound professionals are listed
 under radiologic technician and vascular technologists don't have a
 classification. The point was made that we have an opportunity to get a NEW
 classification for all of us. The SVT is endorsing the classification of
 Diagnostic Ultrasound Professional. This designation is what is used for the
 Scope of Practice that the SVT and SDMS have worked on. This classification
 will encompass ALL diagnostic ultrasound.

 If this happens it would be very good for all of us. It would be a legal
 classification that everyone could take to human resources, management and
 the general public showing that the Department of Labor considers us as
 professionals.

 Think about it and give your opinion to the SDMS or the SVT!

 Audrey Fleming, RDMS
  >>
Dear Audrey et al.

Here is a bit of information that just might help you see the light.
Vascular Technology, like Echocardiography, is included in both diagnostic
medical sonography and cardiovascular technology.  While diagnostic medical
sonography is a subcategory under radiology, and vascular technology is a sub
category of that subcategory under radiology.  This is not the situation in
cardiovascular technology. Vascular technology is recognized as 1/4 of the
entire category, as it would be if they invented the category the SVT
proposes.

Here's another tasty tidbit, the sonographer scope of practice was recently
modified to include IV insertion and administration of medications.  That
which the cardiovascular technologist scope of practice has always included.
This modification came about after many heated discussions over the tech Vs
sonographer issue and the governing bodies finally realized the legal loop
hole they created, and the increasing use of contrast media and pharmacologic
studies.

Finally, I would like to say that I am tired of the old comparison of
cardiovascular technologists to radiologic technologists.  All of these
misconceived ideas to the definition of technologist is due to so many having
come from the radiologic background. In my arena when an RT. walks into the
lab, all they really know and can demonstrate is their knowledge of x-ray
generation.  And don't even think they can run 35 mm film or deal with
digital archiving, know about fluid dynamics, hemodynamics, critical patient
care, CV A&P, pharmacology, or how to run a code. There is a serious night
and day differences in the level of knowledge and practice. Hence the
Inter-Session on Cardiology's (now the ACC) 1955 recommendations to the AMA
to create the field of cardiovascular technology, because the RNs and the RTs
were not able to meet the needs of the cardiologists.

So when you say sonographer, please realize that the sonography scope of
practice has just recently become equal to that of the noninvasive cardiovascu
lar technologist.

Tony