Print

Print


I found it.... Page 145, chapter 6, article 12, paragraph 8,  
subsection 7.....""" a patient is deemed a good actor ( based not only  
on reputation and likeability, but also by box office receipts), a  
good athlete ( professional, however collegiate may apply if played on  
national TV greater than 6 times and/or awarded a national honor (ie:  
heisman trophy, etc) OR a patronly saint (caregiver to the poor,  
healer, but not TV. Evangelist) it is deemed permissable to discuss  
the said individuals medical care and or condition with anyone the  
caregiver deems appropriate, with or without the expressed written  
consent of the patient, even if there is no relevance to patient  
care.   It is considered to be of greater acceptance to post it on the  
Internet for increased exposure. Conversely, if the patient is  
considered to be a bad actor (see Steven Segal), marginal athlete (see  
Brian Bosworth), or hypocritical person of the cloth (see Jim/ Tammy  
Faye Baker), it is in COMPLETE violation of these guidelines to  
discuss any facet of the patients medical history or records without  
court order!""""

:D

Doug Marcum RDMS,RDCS,RVT(APS)
Advanced Ultrasound Consultants
Elite Solutions for Vein Therapy/ Insufficiency Scanning and On-Site  
Education
P: 321.231.2191
F: 407-971-4775
www.advancedusconsultants.com
[log in to unmask]
Sent from my iPhone

On May 27, 2009, at 7:04 PM, Doug Marcum  
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I think this falls under the auspices of "just because you can,  
> doesn't mean you should!".  (i feel) Airing out the personal medical  
> information of an individual is not professional nor ethical, and it  
> really isnt our personal decision to decide the terms of what we  
> feel will cause no harm if we share it.
> Maybe mrs "smith" doesn't feel it's anyones business she had a CT  
> scan no matter how good she looks. That's how rumors start that can  
> take on a very painful life of their own. It's cavalier sharing of  
> personal medical information that created the HIPPA governing in the  
> first place
>
> D
>
> Doug Marcum RDMS,RDCS,RVT(APS)
> Advanced Ultrasound Consultants
> Elite Solutions for Vein Therapy/ Insufficiency Scanning and On-Site  
> Education
> P: 321.231.2191
> F: 407-971-4775
> www.advancedusconsultants.com
> [log in to unmask]
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 27, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Jeff Stanley <[log in to unmask]>  
> wrote:
>
>> I tend to use the greater/lesser than 50% most of the time since  
>> our surgeons are basically looking for significant disease that  
>> would correlate with the pt's symptoms.  I'll usually comment that  
>> it may be >75% if the EDV is over 100 cm/sec.  We use the 100%  
>> increase in velocity (ratio of 2.0) or more to say it is  
>> significant, along with change in waveform.  Reversed flow  
>> component should be lost distally to say a stenosis is significant.
>>
>> Anyone using the 20-49% category (velocity increase of 30%-100%  
>> with spectral broadening and visualized stenosis)?
>>
>> Jeff Stanley BS,RVT
>> The Surgical Clinic
>> Nashville, TN
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: UVM Flownet on behalf of Combs, Kristin
>> Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 1:16 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: arterial duplex criteria
>>
>>
>> Hello all-
>> Just wondering if people are still using the diagnostic criteria  
>> for arterial duplex that has >50% stenosis being 100% increase in  
>> velocity when compared with the proximal non diseased segment. <  
>> 50% as being less than 100%.  Is anyone out there quantifying  
>> stenosis categories >75%? I have seen some articles recently that  
>> seem to be promoting just <50%, and > 50%.....
>>
>> To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:
>> http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html
>>
>
> To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:
> http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html
>

To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:
http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html