My 2 cents worth;

I received very vague response from the ARDMS about the matter of RVT
vs. RDVS name change when I contacted Dale and Paul at ARDMS.  Because as
an RVT and a member of SVU I feel am entitled to know what the specific
issues are that they considered.  Furthermore, I think that the name change
while to some people may seem miniscule, is actually a matter that can
potentially have a great impact upon the future of our profession.

My reasoning is:

1. That the reimbursement issues will take care of themselves in
respect to the name change, i.e.  Medicare would recognize that the RDVS is
the same as the credential they originally specified (RVT) for preforming
Vascular Diagnotic Stuidies, and reciprocate authorization for reimbursement
at the same rate to RDVS as is in place for RVT; although it should be made
clear that this credential name change is made in the interest of bettering
the profession and the quality of studies performed.

2. I believe that the Technologist title is too often confused with the
Technician(task performer) title , therefore reducing the respect for our
profession to those not as familiar with the extent of our duties and
performance standards.

3. This in my opinion, effects the quality of persons who enter this
profession.  Until WE take aggressive action to change the perception and
raise the bar, we will not see a significant increase in the quality of
prospective students, (Those with a professional mentality).  The name
change issue is only a part of the BIG PICTURE, however I veiw it to be an
improtant part.  I do realize that the ARDMS and SVU are working towards
these common goals, and I do not want to minimize actions thus far taken
and those that have been proposed.  For example, I believe changing the pre-
requisite requirements to require more formalized training and less OJT is
a good thing, however, I think we need to go further by requiring
Associate/Bachelors Degree for people entering the feild.  We need to
compete for stuents trying to enter Professional feilds, these prospective
students are for the most part, coming out of High School looking for Full-
Time Bachelor Degree granting programs, this is where we need to focus,
however these students will not be interested in looking at what they
consider to be a JOB as a technician.  I do believe that the Associate
Degree programs have a place, but I see certificate programs much less
desirable.  Lets take a lesson from the nursing profession!!

I realize that there is an argument that we don't have enough people
entering the feild, so therefore we can not further limit the prospective
pool.  This is not absolutely correct, by further limiting the pool, we may
suffer what I predict to be a short term further shortage of the supply of
qualified professionals, but this would be a small price to pay for raising
the bar, increasing quality and respect for the profession, and in the
process would also increase the average salary to something that would also
be more attractive to professional minded prospective students.

I also do not believe that the ARDMS should become a self-appointed
accrediting body, by granting CAAHEP waivers to certain programs, as good as
they may be.  (Do your job, do it well, and let others to do what they do
well, isn't that what Vascular Surgeons are trying to tell Cardiologists who
want to start putting stents in the Carotid and Lower Extremities?) :)

With this in mind I hope you all have/will follow up with the ARDMS on this
matter, let your voice be heard, perhaps we need to gather a petition of
signatures form existing
RVTs on this matter?

Gene Doverspike, RVT
Clinical Education Coordinator
Peripheral Vascular Diagnostic Center
Division of Vascular Surgery - Vascular Fellowship Program
University Hospitals of Cleveland - Case Western Reserve University
11100 Euclid Avenue (WRN-5057)
Cleveland, OH 44107

Office: (216) 844-3436

To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to: