Very well said, JP

From: UVM Flownet [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joseph Hughes [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: recertification

Hello Lisa, et al:

I have not read all of the e-mails in this thread, so I'm sorry if someone already explained this.

Each of the credentialing bodies in U/S - ARDMS, CCI, ARRT - are accredited by a particular body to prove that their tests and credentials are valid and reflect the body of work currently performed in the field. The ARDMS and ARRT are accredited via the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) for all of their exams, with a few exceptions on ARRT exams. A few years ago, the ARDMS decided that they wanted to have an international presence and pursued accreditation through the International Standards Organization-American National Standards Institute (ISO-ANSI). About two years ago, CCI did the same. This has been public knowledge for quite some time.

A few years ago, the ARDMS put out a questionnaire about re-certification and gathered representatives from all of the ultrasound organizations, including SVU. They gathered the groups to discuss HOW, not IF, recertification was to be carried out. They could have done many things, including retaking the exams and charging for them, however, they developed this delivery method.

Essentially, ARDMS like many medical profession credentialing bodies, are required, under the rules of THEIR accreditation, to assure that those with their credential are recertified. You can look up the numerous professions that require recertification. CME does not assure that someone absorbed material, or even attended a seminar for that matter. Having been involved on the SVU-CME Committee and attended numerous CME policy meetings, there are numerous methods to get CME but it is difficult to police the process for accuracy of information presented or to assure that CME was obtained for the intended reason- education. But that's a different subject.

Licensure was mentioned in the thread too. Licensure in NM and OR, the first two states to require it, require the tech to have a credential and pay an annual few. BTW, who mentioned it's just another way for for someone to make money?

I have read so many threads on Flownet about how we should be recognized as professional, and no one gives us respect, and we should be able read studies ourselves, and Blah Blah Blah. An organization who is arguably recognized as THE ultrasound credentialing body, is required to recertify its constituents, puts together a fairly innocuous plan that won't go into effect for quite awhile, and we complain.

But that's OK because that's what the Flownet is for - a forum to exchange ideas, good or bad, right or wrong.


---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:08:45 -0700
>From: UVM Flownet <[log in to unmask]> (on behalf of Lisa Mekenas <[log in to unmask]>)
>Subject: Re: recertification
>To: [log in to unmask]
>   And who is THEIR cerifying agency? What
>   international agency are we talking. In Europe the
>   MD's do most ultrasounds. I am very interested in
>   these
>   other agencies whose standards of compliance are
>   being imposed. Where on the ARDMS web site is this
>   listed?
>   I like to follow this "trickle flow" , after all I'm
>   just a vascular tech in the ARDMS.
>   I might add, that we have no real powers of
>   diagnosis, as in the MD,ect.

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