In a message dated 08/29/2000 3:21:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< 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
>>
Tony,
I don't see any mention of Cardiovascular Technologists anywhere in
Audrey's discussion. The only mention is the word technician, which is a term
we use to define a NON registered person who performs ultrasound. We use this
classification to make a differentiation in the minimum entry level skills
not yet proven to those that have proven their skills by passing the ARDMS
registry.
Here is a copy of the SDMS site definition:
Ultrasound Technician Member [TEC]
If you are a healthcare provider and have not obtained one of the ARDMS
credentials and are primarily involved in the practice of sonography,
sonography education, clinical management, or commercial activities, you are
eligible for this membership category. You are entitled to all the benefits
of membership except the right to vote and hold office. And, if in the
future, you decide to become a registered sonographer, the SDMS provides the
professional support to assist you in your career goals.
This technically would include RVS and RCS from your credentialing
organization since it specifies ARDMS credentials.
As far as being able to administer medications, I think you are mislead
about that fact. The scope of practice only includes the administration of
Ultrasound Contrast Media. Most sonographers and ultrasound technicians have
not been through any formal pharmacology courses. It is just a simple fact
that we need contrast in our daily work now.
This is a snip of the Scope of practice that includes information of the
IV insertion and contrast media:
1.3.5 Uses appropriate technique for intravenous line insertion and
contrast media administration when the use of contrast is required.
There are no mentions of any other medications being included in this
scope of practice.
The whole point Audrey was trying to convey is that RIGHT now we
(Sonography) are currently listed as a subsection of Radiography according to
the Department of Labor. The scope of practice between these two fields does
not even closely reflect one another and we would prefer our own
classification.
Kelly Estes RDMS, RDCS, RVT
The Sanger Clinic
