Re: Ultrasound Accreditation & Education in the USA
From: Brooke Germann (brooke5170@aol.com)
Thu Sep 6 14:40:41 2001
At Wed, 15 Aug 2001, DuBose, Terry wrote:
>Mr. Terry J. DuBose,
I am a high school student considering a career in ultrasound
diagnostics. This year i am a senior, and am involved in developing a
senior project. The senior project requires that i get some information
on a job that i would like to perform after college.
If it is not of any inconvenience to you i would greatly appreciate it
if you could send me some information on this particular career. Some
of the specifics are: How many years of schooling will i need? What is
the average sallary of ultrasound diagnostic personell per year? Also,
What specific tasks are involved within the career itself.
I thank you for your time and am sorry if i have inconvenienced you in
any way. Please send as much information as you can... if you can!
Thank You,
Brooke L. Germann
>Peace, Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS, APS
>Assistant Professor & Director, Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program
>CHRP, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
>Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
>501-686-6510
>http://www.io.com/~dubose/
>http://www.uams.edu/CHRP/dmshome.htm
>http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joan P Baker [mailto:jbakerbaker@home.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 3:34 PM
>To: jones douglas; DuBose, Terry
>Cc: 'Johnson, Bonnie L.'; 'Leif Penrose'; RVT EDUCATORS List Serv;
>Sonographers-Connection@Lists. UCHSC. edu (E-mail); Board@SDMS (E-mail);
>Don Kerns @SDMS CIO (E-mail)
>Subject: Re: Accreditation & Mock Registries
>
>I If you have a need for the history I can assist. Back in the 1970's there
>was serious turf wars and just like today these were mainly turf battles of
>the physicians rather than the sonographers. In the days before the JRC but
>after the occupation was created it was the job of the Dept Allied Health
>Education and Accreditation (DAHEA) to bring together "parties of interest"
>when a new health occupation was created. Once a Document of Essentials was
>created and approved, these "parties" would be called Sponsoring
>Institutions . DAHEA was a dept of the AMA who was responsible to the
>United States Office of Education (USOE) for accrediting programs and
>approving them so that they were eligible for federal grant money allowing
>students to go to school to learn this newly created occupation. Everyone
>was invited to the "party". You would not believe all the MD specialties
>that showed up the first meeting! However, as time went on and it did for
>some 6 years many dropped out. To be a sponsoring institution you must pay a
>fee and also provide the support for your representative to come to all the
>meetings. Six years worth of meetings while turf battles raged was not seen
>by many, to be good use of their money.
>
>We had groups like orolaryngolgists, Society of Nuc Med, (SNM) ACR, ASRT,
>ACC, ASE, ACOG, ASUTS (SDMS). and many more. Notably absent were the SVT
>called SNIVT at that time and the vascular surgeons, they wanted no part of
>formal education and wanted to OJT their sonographers.
>
>Because of turf wars it took YEARS to produce a 6 page document that all
>parties would agree to. It was mainly problems (turf battles) between ACR
>and ASE/ACC that caused this. In fact at one time we had a 6 page document
>that Peter Sellers could have read as part of his comedy routine as it said
>NOTHING! and was no more than a jumble of words. The final DRAFT that was
>accepted was 12B just to give you an idea of the number of rewrites. At what
>was to be the FINAL meeting after 6 years of getting together was in San
>Francisco and Nuc Med sent a physician who did not even know what this
>process was all about, opposed it completely and did not believe there
>should even be a "sonographer" that Nuc Med techs and XRay techs could do
>ultrasound as part of their daily work on a as needed basis. Nothing
>happened the whole committee was in limbo and Nuc Med was contacted and
>asked to send someone knowledgeable about the process and all the years of
>meetings. Finally 6 months later the D of E was approved and version 12B
>became the official document.
>
>If it had not been for Marilyn Fay the ASRT rep who was VERY familiar with
>the JRC process I am not sure how things would have come together. She came
>aboard, the first shinning light from ASRT and took over our process and she
>and Marc Lapyowker MD from ACR were able to get the JRC up and running in no
>time which helped since we had been so delayed.
>
>During these early days The ACC representative a physician from San Diego
>whose name escapes me convinced the ACC to pull out of the JRC DMS
>sponsorship. He was involved with the program at Grossmont and Dennis Carney
>from the Spokane CC program was also involved in a similar program they
>wanted to train folks to be holter monitor techs, EKG, ECHO as non-invasive
>technologists and also train those that wanted to do the cath lab to be
>invasive techs. They both had programs that had a common first year and then
>the student would select which specialty, invasive versus non-invasive.
>Given that ACR and ASRT were starting out the JRC and getting it going they
>wanted NOTHING to do with anything radiological and they appealed through
>the physician organizations to CAHEA for the creation of another JRC in
>cardiovascular. This group was also rejected by the SNVIT/SVT but was
>supported by ACC and ASE because it was non radiological. SDMS also served
>on this JRC and Sandy Hagen-Ansert was a great ambassador for the SDMS in
>this effort.
>
>The JRC DMS was asked to create a cardiac track as part of their
>accreditation because many sites wanted to train cardiac sonographers but
>not the way Spokane and Grossmont were doing, they wanted to train
>sonographers to do cardiac ultrasound, they did not want to train
>sonographers to be invasive or non invasive techs. ASE had stayed on the JRC
>DMS and served as the resource to get this started and many of the general
>schools added cardiac training usually as a separate learning concentration
>to general ultrasound. Again vascular was not a part of this. They had no
>one on the JRC and IMHO this is how many programs got into teaching vascular
>as part of a general learning concentration and I also believe that vascular
>sonography suffers to this day because of these decisions by the vascular
>community, hence why we are very short of vascular programs. I am delighted
>to see that new leadership will hopefully bring a change to this and
>vascular sonography will start to have a formal education, but it will take
>years to catch up this almost 20 year mistake.
>
>As budgets got tight and philosophically the SDMS wanted unity not
>separation and the fact that only 2 programs had become accredited under
>this JRC- CVT ie Grossmont and Spokane the SDMS decided to withdraw their
>support as did other sponsoring institutions at the time. There are now a
>few more programs accredited but still very few compared to the 70 -90
>accredited by the JRC DMS, many of whom are accredited in cardiac and some
>accredited in vascular. The ACC took over the management of this. The ACC
>also petitioned to return to the JRC DMS and with some struggle they were
>accepted. Again it was the turf battles of the MD's that were making it hard
>for them to return.
>
>History is about to repeat itself I feel, Now we again have physician turf
>battles brewing between cardiologists who want to now do vascular studies
>and vascular surgeons. We also have turf wars with surgeons in the breast
>and radiologists and ER physicians and radiologists. I doubt it will never
>end! The one fundamental cause I believe is the failure of the physican
>community to create the College of Sonology and have boards in Sonology
>which would have united everyone. May be it is the SDMS who should consider
>calling itself the Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonology and move forward
>like England has into the ultrasound practitioner middle level provider.
>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>From: "jones douglas" <zzdjones@washburn.edu>
>To: "DuBose, Terry" <DuboseTerryJ@uams.edu>
>Cc: "'Johnson, Bonnie L.'" <Bonnie.Johnson@medcenter.stanford.edu>; "'Leif
>Penrose'" <lpenrose@cvtcollege.org>; "RVT EDUCATORS List Serv"
><education-ad-hoc-l@oit.edu>; "Sonographers-Connection@Lists. UCHSC. edu
>(E-mail)" <Sonographers-Connection@Lists.UCHSC.edu>; "Board@SDMS (E-mail)"
><board@sdms.org>; "Don Kerns @SDMS CIO (E-mail)" <dkerns@sdms.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 7:29 AM
>Subject: Re: Accreditation & Mock Registries
>
>good comments terry,
>i can't fill you in on the history of having 2 jrc's because i don't know.
>as an educator involved in echo, vasc., and gen ultrasound and as a member
>of ase, svt, and sdms, i favor a single jrc that would accredit programs
>in each area of ultrasound singularly or in any combination. i believe
>this purpose is served by the jrc-dms. is there any reason the jrc-cvt is
>needed as a pathway to accrediting ultrasound programs? doug
>
>Doug Jones BA, RDMS, RDCS, RVT, RCT
>Washburn University
>Dept. of Allied Health
>1700 SW College
>Topeka, Ks. 66621
>Phone: 785 231 1010 ext 2294
>Email: zzdjones@washburn.edu
>Fax: 785-231-1027
>
>On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, DuBose, Terry wrote:
>
>> Touché, Bonnie. You are correct, finding the commonality of all
>Ultrasound
>> Professionals is one of the most important issues we face as a profession.
>>
>> I also agree that the JVT editorial that I have referenced many times is
>> "ancient" history now... over 10 years ago. However, I will say that for
>> me, having spent a career of 20+ years studying and researching fetal
>> sonography, fetal growth, cardiac and vascular development, that
>particular
>> editorial had a deep and negative affect on me. I admit to being
>somewhat
>> obsessive about obstetrical sonography, but I don't think any one can
>accuse
>> me of denigrating the vascular part of our profession, even though I don't
>> agree with all the symbols we use to describe ourselves. I know that
>> vascular studies are difficult and important, and that the RVT exam is one
>> of the most difficult of the ARDMS.
>>
>> There does seem to be a continuing tendency, by a few, to ignore the
>> collaboration of the SVT and the SDMS. It may be my own bias, but my
>> impression is that the SDMS gives the SVT credit for collaboration in the
>> fees and work done in legislative issues more often than does the SVT give
>> SDMS credit for the same. While there is some "uniqueness" to all aspects
>of
>> sonography, that should not be something that divides us.
>>
>> Now, to "accentuate the positive", the collaboration between the SVT and
>> SDMS is much better than it was 10 years ago. It is good to see them both
>> contributing to the cost of the lobbying efforts and the expenses of the
>> legal team of Bill Sarraille, SDMS's & SVT's Regulatory and Legislative
>> Counsel. We are moving in the correct direction, IMHO.
>>
>> United we scan... but another JRC? Not having been a part of the
>> discussions you refer to, I am very interested in why... what are the
>> reasons for this proposal? I don't even understand why there are already
>> two JRC's for Ultrasound Professionals. Anyone care to share that
>history?
>>
>> Peace, Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS, APS
>> Assistant Professor & Director, Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program
>> CHRP, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
>> Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
>> 501-686-6510
>> http://www.io.com/~dubose/
>> http://www.uams.edu/CHRP/dmshome.htm
>> http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Johnson, Bonnie L. [mailto:Bonnie.Johnson@medcenter.stanford.edu]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 8:21 PM
>> To: 'Leif Penrose'; DuBose, Terry
>> Cc: RVT EDUCATORS List Serv; Sonographers-Connection@Lists. UCHSC. edu
>> (E-mail); Board@SDMS (E-mail); Don Kerns @SDMS CIO (E-mail)
>> Subject: RE: Accreditation & Mock Registries
>>
>> Thank you Leif - I applaud your comments and fully agree. We must work
>> together. More importantly we must STOP dregging up the past. That ol
>> "monkey see monkey do" article that Terry refers to below that showed up
>> many many years ago by a naive RVT should NOT be used to judge us all. It
>> simply is not fair nor just. It is history and it should stay there. The
>> more stories like that are publicized, the more people will believe it
>> "words have meaning" right Terry? So lets "forget about it" and move
>onward
>> and upward. I think "respect" for fellow colleagues should be promoted,
>> after all, lets face it, there are "bad" RVT's and there are "bad" RDMS or
>> RDCS. BUT, fortunately there are GOOD in all. Accentuate the positive.
>> Thanks for listening.
>>
>> PS: The JRC topic was only a discussion with many different views - more
>> information will be collected. bj
>>
>> Bonnie L. Johnson RDMS, RVT, FSVT
>> Stanford University Medical Center
>> Director, Vascular Laboratory Services
>> Division of Vascular Surgery
>> Stanford, CA
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Leif Penrose [mailto:lpenrose@cvtcollege.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 6:06 AM
>> To: DuBose, Terry
>> Cc: RVT EDUCATORS List Serv; Sonographers-Connection@Lists. UCHSC. edu
>> (E-mail); Board@SDMS (E-mail); Don Kerns @SDMS CIO (E-mail)
>> Subject: Re: Accreditation & Mock Registries
>>
>> Good Morning Terry et al.,
>>
>> LeAnn Maupin is the great and wonderful RVT Program Director from Oregon
>> Institute of Technology (OIT). Theirs is the only dedicated Baccalaureate
>> RVT program in the country. At the annual SVT meeting in Pittsburgh the
>RVT
>> educators met for the second time. LeAnn announced that she had started
>> this list serve to help this fledgling group start to share the concerns
>and
>> issues which might be unique to the RVT programs. As you may know the RVT
>> programs are currently accredited with JRC-DMS or JRC-CVT.
>>
>> As with all developing fields of study, the SVT is looking and feeling
>their
>> way through the morass of history and personalities that sometimes impedes
>> progress of new specialties. The inevitable "Chest Thumping" I spoke
>about
>> is a necessary part of that evolution. My hope is that the SDMS, SDMS
>> educators, and JRC-DMS will take this opportunity to see the uniqueness of
>> the RVT profession and try to include that uniqueness into future
>> plans/goals/projects. If we alienate each other by allowing our
>> personalities and past slights to get in our way, we may very well lose
>this
>> dynamic group to a separate accreditation or splinter each other even
>> further. With the SVT dropping it's representation on the JRC-CVT
>> accreditation committee, the JRC-DMS, and SDMS should be paying closer
>> attention to the specifics of Vascular Technology as a unique and yet
>> similar profession. The SVT recently published education guidelines for
>> Vascular Technology programs. In my mind, those guidelines did not leave
>> room for "6 month" tackons to a general DMS program. IMHO, if the JRC-DMS
>> does not read this hand writing on the wall we could see a push towards a
>> third JRC specific for RVT. This could not possibly be helpful to SDMS or
>> the JRC-DMS.
>>
>> I have recently entered the SDMS Web site and reviewed the members only
>> sections. It is nice to see archived and ordered discussions. It also
>> takes extra effort to determine that "Today, I'm going to search the site"
>> Guess I'm either lazy or too busy......... I prefer to delete messages
>from
>> a list serve. Remember that some of the members of this list serve may
>not
>> be SDMS members and may not have access. (LeAnn ? ? what is our makeup??
>> can we view this info?)
>>
>> Remember that list serves are a labor of love and there is a learning
>curve
>> for new owners and new members. This one has started out nicely and on a
>> very positive note.
>>
>> :-) Leif Penrose
>>
>> "DuBose, Terry" wrote:
>>
>> Leif, thanks for your words about cooperation. While I am in no need for
>> more Email, I will remain on this list long enough to see how it goes.
>>
>> It appears that much of the discussion here was started before I was
>> included or was elsewhere. There have been several references to which I
>> have no prior knowledge: "... third JRC that only oversaw/inspected for
>RVT
>> programs." Heaven forbid! I thought having two was odd enough... and how
>is
>> this cooperative? It certainly won't make the process any more economical
>> or easy. What would be the advantage of a RVT only JRC?
>>
>> "(I know this may fly in the face of all the chest thumping that has been
>> going on the past few days on flownet)." Ahhh, now I see where you are
>> coming from... sorry, I may not be welcome in this discussion. I find
>> carotids much easier to do than diagnosing a Tetralogy of Fallow in a
>> squirming fetus... now that will bring on the flame-throwers... and that
>is
>> why I don't subscribe to Flownet.
>>
>> Sorry folks, I promise to not be divisive as long as no one calls me a
>> "Monkey see, Monkey do sonographer", or is demeaning toward my fellow
>> colleagues... regardless of their ARDMS specialties.
>>
>> It is also probably the reason I will continue to post my discussions of
>> this nature on the new SDMS Forums in discussion areas where the messages
>> are archived and searchable by key word, author, etc... and good,
>> civilized, educational discussions... and the searchable archives saves a
>> lot of redundancy. See: http://www.sdms.org/members/default.asp
>> <http://www.sdms.org/members/default.asp> . Topics such as:
>>
>> Educators
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=2&CAT_ID=2&Forum_Titleíucators>
>>
>> Discussion of educational issues, techniques, etc. for those involved in
>> sonography education.
>>
>> National
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID&CAT_ID=2&Forum_Title=National+Certificat
>> ion+Examinations> Certification Examinations
>> Discussion of how to prepare for National Certification Examinations. 2
>>
>> SDMS
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_IDB&CAT_ID=2&Forum_Title=SDMS+Educational+Fo
>> undation> Educational Foundation
>> Discussion of the grants and award programs available to SDMS members.
>>
>> Students <outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=3&CAT_ID=2&Forum_Title=Students>
>> Discussion of issues related to being a sonography student and pursuing a
>> career in sonography.
>>
>> Ultrasound
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID)&CAT_ID=2&Forum_Title=Ultrasound+Practiti
>> oner> Practitioner
>> Discussions about efforts to establish Ultrasound Practitioner programs
>>
>> Career/Job
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID0&CAT_ID=5&Forum_TitleÊreer%2FJob+Issues
>> > Issues
>> Discussion of issues related to your job/career in sonography such as job
>> descriptions, policies, salary negotiations.
>>
>> Government
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID&CAT_ID=5&Forum_Title=Government+Affairs>
>> Affairs
>> Discussion of legislative and regulatory issues that impact sonographers.
>>
>> Musculoskeletal
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID&CAT_ID=5&Forum_Title=Musculoskeletal+Inj
>> ury+%28MSI%29> Injury (MSI)
>> Discussion of musculoskeletal injuries and their impact on sonographers.
>> [Sponsored by BiodexMedicalSystems, Inc.]
>>
>> Reimbursement
>> <outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID(&CAT_ID=5&Forum_Title=Reimbursement>
>> Discussion of issues related to reimbursement.
>>
>> Research
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID1&CAT_ID=5&Forum_Title=Research>
>>
>> Discussion of issues, techniques, etc related to research in diagnostic
>> medical sonography.
>>
>> Veterinary
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID&CAT_ID=5&Forum_Title=Veterinary+Ultrasou
>> nd> Ultrasound
>> Discussion of issues related to provision of veterinary ultrasound.
>>
>> International
>> <outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID2&CAT_ID=7&Forum_Title=International>
>> Discussions for SDMS members located outside the United States and Canada
>> (including all other countries and US Military
>>
>> Region <outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID3&CAT_ID=7&Forum_Title=Region+1>
>1
>>
>> Discussions for SDMS members located in Region 1 [AK,CA,HI,ID,OR,NV,WA]
>>
>> Region <outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID4&CAT_ID=7&Forum_Title=Region+2>
>2
>>
>> Discussions for members located in Region 2 [CO,MT,NE,ND,SD,UT,WY
>>
>> Region <outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID5&CAT_ID=7&Forum_Title=Region+3>
>3
>>
>> Discussions for SDMS members located in Region 3 [AR,AZ,KS,LA,NM,OK,TX]
>>
>> Region <outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID6&CAT_ID=7&Forum_Title=Region+4>
>4
>>
>> Discussions for SDMS members located in Region 4 [IA,IL,IN,MN,MO,OH,MI,WI
>>
>> Region <outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID7&CAT_ID=7&Forum_Title=Region+5>
>5
>>
>> Discussions for SDMS members located in Region 5
>> [CT,DC,DE,MA,MD,ME,NH,NJ,NY,PA,RI,WV,VT]
>>
>> Region <outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID8&CAT_ID=7&Forum_Title=Region+6>
>6
>>
>> Discussions for SDMS members located in Region 6
>> [AL,FL,GA,KY,MS,NC,SC,TN,VA]
>>
>> Region <outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID9&CAT_ID=7&Forum_Title=Region+7>
>7
>>
>> Discussions for SDMS members located in Region 7 [Canada]
>>
>> Specialty Content Areas
>>
>> Abdomen
>> <outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=6&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title«domen+%28AB%29>
>> (AB)
>> Discussion of issues related to the Abdomen specialty.
>>
>> Adult
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=7&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Titleult+Echocardiograp
>> hy+%28AE%29> Echocardiography (AE)
>> Discussion of issues related to the Adult Echocardiography specialty.
>>
>> Breast
>> <outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title=Breast+%28BR%29>
>> (BR)
>> Discussion of issues related to the Breast Ultrasound specialty.
>>
>> Cardiovascular
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID"&CAT_ID=3&Forum_TitleÊrdiovascular+Prin
>> ciples+%26+Instrumentation+%28CPI%29> Principles & Instrumentation (CPI)
>> Discussion of issues related to cardiovascular principles and
>> instrumentation.
>>
>> Neurosonology
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title=Neurosonology+%28NE
>> %29> (NE)
>> Discussion of issues related to the Neurosonology specialty.
>>
>> OB/GYN
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title=OB%2FGYN+%28OB%29>
>> (OB)
>> Discussion of issues related to the Obstetric/Gynecology specialty.
>>
>> Ophthamology
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title=Ophthamology+%28OP%
>> 29> (OP)
>> Discussion of issues related to the Ophthamology specialty.
>>
>> Pediatric
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title=Pediatric+Echocardi
>> ography+%28PE%29> Echocardiography (PE)
>> Discussion of issues related to the Pediatric Echocardiography specialty.
>>
>> Ultrasound
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID &CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title=Ultrasound+Physics+
>> %26+Instrumentation+%28UPI%29> Physics & Instrumentation (UPI)
>> Discussion of issues related to ultrasound physics and instrumentation.
>>
>> Vascular
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID!&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title=Vascular+Principles
>> +%26+Instrumentation+%28VPI%29> Principles & Instrumentation (VPI)
>> Discussion of issues related to vascular principles and instrumentation.
>>
>> Vascular
>>
><outbind://29/forum.asp?FORUM_ID&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title=Vascular+Technology
>> +%28VT%29> Technology (VT)
>>
>> Peace, Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS, APS
>> Assistant Professor & Director, Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program
>> CHRP, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
>> Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
>> 501-686-6510
>> http://www.io.com/~dubose/ <http://www.io.com/~dubose/>
>> http://www.uams.edu/CHRP/dmshome.htm
><http://www.uams.edu/CHRP/dmshome.htm>
>>
>> http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm
>> <http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Leif Penrose [ mailto:lpenrose@cvtcollege.org
>> <mailto:lpenrose@cvtcollege.org> ]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 8:57 AM
>> To: RVT EDUCATORS List Serv
>> Subject: Accreditation & Mock Registries
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> The SVT meeting in Pittsburgh was informative and very worthwhile for me.
>> The best part was meeting people such as Cliff, LeAnn, & Chris. There
>were
>> others there as well but I'm really having more and more "Senior moments"
>> Yikes :-)!!.
>>
>> In regards to the accreditation issue: i.e.; JRC-DMS vs JRC-CVT. Our
>> school would not be in favor of a third JRC that only oversaw/inspected
>for
>> RVT programs. For two primary reasons. We are actively working toward
>> adding Echocardiography as a 3rd track to DMS & RVT. I would not want to
>> have more self studies and paper work to keep accreditation for another
>> area. Secondly, There is power in numbers. The more fragmented the
>> Sonography community becomes the more easily it will be divided. The SVT
>&
>> SDMS seem to have an excellent working relationship. There appears to be
>> quite a bit of collaboration and mutual respect. (I know this may fly in
>> the face of all the chest thumping that has been going on the past few
>days
>> on flownet). The major change that I think should be implemented is to
>ask
>> our SVT member of the JRC-DMS Board (Phil Bendick), to have the six month
>> extension for additional tracks lengthened. The complexity of Echo &
>> Vascular do not subscribe themselves to a time period of that length.
>IMHO.
>>
>> On another track:
>>
>> We have purchased and used for a number of years on online testing
>software.
>> We bought a program that delivers exams very similarly to the ARDMS exams.
>> The program is a delivery tool and has no content. We have developed
>> content and currently use it for mock registries for our DMS students and
>> Physics tests for our Online U/S physics class.
>>
>> As we develop the tests for mock registries for our RVT program we are
>> willing to share access to the mock registries with educators in
>accredited
>> programs who are willing to submit questions. There are licensing issues
>> that keep us from being able to do this wholesale (we can only have 50
>> registered exam takers at any moment in time) but if the timing of your
>> program is such that you'd want access at a time other than November -
>March
>> we could easily accommodate a network.
>>
>> You can look at the current site now 167.176.196.180 The site functions
>> with Netscape but works with all the bells and whistles with Internet
>> Explorer.
>>
>> * Click a link on the left for "access test when not @ CVT".
>>
>> * You can sign in as: Guest
>>
>> * With password: Guest
>>
>> The deal is this: You send to me questions in a certain format with any
>> images attached as *.GIF files an electronic file. They need to be
>> categorized according to the published ARDMS guidelines i.e.;
>>
>> * Vascular Physics - Propagation of Sound in Tissue or
>>
>> * Vascular Technology - Test validation or
>>
>> * Vascular technology - Cerebral Artery Disease Testing - Patient
>> History
>>
>> Then I (as the author {more licensing issues}) import the questions into
>the
>> test bank. You tell me the name of your students and when they need
>access.
>> I create a mock registry for Vascular Technology and another for Vascular
>> Physical Principles and Instrumentation. These are based on taking
>> questions from the test bank in the category percentages listed in the
>> published ARDMS guidelines. During the time period you provided, your
>> students may access 24/7 the mock registries over the net. Each time the
>> student takes a mock registry they get a different set of random
>questions.
>> When they are done they are shown their scores and which questions they
>got
>> right/wrong as well as the correct answers. They can print the results if
>> they desire. You can access the site to see their scores and individual
>> answers.
>>
>> It doesn't cost me a dime more to have my 12 students or max the license
>out
>> at 50. The more folks I can get to join in this project the better the
>test
>> bank becomes and the more useful the tool. I'm still trying to come up
>> with an equitable number of questions I'd want in relation to the number
>of
>> students accessing. Right now I'm thinking around 50-100 questions for
>each
>> student you'd like to have access. (Could be a good tool for the student
>to
>> have to write 50 questions with your editing the questions for accuracy
>and
>> style).
>>
>> We can modify the access page so that it lists your school as a sponsor.
>(It
>> only takes a minute)
>>
>> Sooo,
>>
>> * If you are with an accredited program
>>
>> * and have some great questions in electronic format
>>
>> * and want your students to have access to Vascular Mock Registries
>>
>> * and you want to find out more details
>>
>> * Call me or E-Mail directly
>>
>> Thanks LeAnn for starting this server.
>>
