Re: ULTRASOUND digest 1726
From: Karen Roersma (kroersmardms@netscape.net)
Wed Sep 25 23:07:08 2002
Part of the reason is safety. Registered sonographers have demonstrated
a minimum level of competence in the areas in which they are registered,
and that includes understanding how to best minimize exposure to the
ultrasound energy so as not to cause harm to the patient. In the case
of obstetric sonography, this includes the fetus, and because the
developing organs are more sensitive to ill effects, caution must be at
the highest.
By having a scan done for no reason other than to have fun looking at
the baby is to take a risk that the baby would be exposed to possible
bioeffects WITHOUT the offset benefit of medical information obtained.
Yes, we think that ultrasound is safe, but only because we offset that
risk by the knowledge we can glean from the scan, and make (or help the
obstetrician make) decisions about the pregnancy management. You cannot
be assured that the standards for safety will be observed in the
entertainment setting, especially if "anyone" can set up a business like
this. I heard a comment when discussing this very issue with a patient
who was a dental hygienist to the effect of, "Where can I get in on
this? This is a huge moneymaker!" Do you really think she cares one iota
about safety, or about the ramifications of ignoring anomalies &
abnormalities (not that she would even recognize one!)?
One ramification that no one has verbalized is that once this becomes
more commonplace, insurance companies will get wind of it, and they will
NOT be happy that parents are willing to shuck out $150 - $300 a pop for
"fun" scans, but balk at paying other bills. Guess what will happen
then? Yeah, they will stop covering ultrasound for screening, and will
clamp down on clinical codes for all obstetric scans. Why should they
pay for a screening scan done to reassure the patient that the baby is
OK if the parents will pay for it themselves? However, I guess that
would take care of the RDMS shortage problem, because there would then
be fewer jobs for all of us, and eventually the "entertainment" market
would be saturated.
Lots of things to consider here...not just big egos blowing smoke &
indignation.
Peace,
Karen
At Wed, 25 Sep 2002, jan hou wrote:
>
>The Entertainment Echos do not take the place of a Diagnostic Medical
>Sonograms which is included in most new mothers check-up. There is a
>shortage of RDMS, and I believe there will always be work for you. So why
>keep complaining about Entertainment Echos?
>Jan, RDMS
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ultrasound@obgyn.net [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:44 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
>Subject: ULTRASOUND digest 1726
>
> ULTRASOUND Digest 1726
>
>Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) Re: RE: Entertainment Echos
> by "Terry J. DuBose" <duboseterryj@uams.edu>
> 2) Undocumented Info in 3 languages !!!
> by "Karen.S" <4w50m@hotmail.com>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:02:27 -0500
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: "Terry J. DuBose" <duboseterryj@uams.edu>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>To: sonographers-connection@lists.UCHSC.edu
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Cc: ultrasound@obgyn.net, board@SDMS.org
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subject: Re: Entertainment Echos
>Message-ID: <fc.00802e0500254c073b9aca00aa0c063d.254c24@uams.edu>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>Ann, thanks for the heads-up on this... that is the best way to make this
>happen. Spread the word around so more folks know about the article.
>
>Thanks, Terry
>
>sonographers-connection@lists.UCHSC.edu writes:
>> I may have a way to fight these folks!! In this weeks Newsweek is a very
>tiny article entitled "Dancing Babies" pg. 74 (saddam is on the cover). It
>is by Claudia Kalb and it discusses "4-d" and the fact that about only 300
>sites have this GE machine, they're mostly used to spot problems with high
>risk pregnancies, "no insurer will cover,and no Doctor should perform a scan
>solely for your scrapbook"!
>>
>>If anyone would be interested I ,Or any of you, can try to contact this
>lady to see if she, or someone else on staff, would listen to our side of
>Fetal photo exploits. She seems to have gotten the ball rolling let's see
>if we can keep it going in our direction. If I did reach her, can I refer
>her to you Terry and Paula (AIUM)? You two have so far been the most
>voiceterous about these folks.
>>
>>Give me some feed back please. Thanks!!
>>
>>Opinions expressed above are not necessarily those expressed by Baptist
>College of Health Sciences or BMHCC
>>
>>Ann Willis BA, RDMS, RVT, RT Instructor Diagnostic Medical Sonography
>Office (901-572-2649) Beeper (901-227-7243 #2952)
>>
>>Fax (901-572-2750)
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Terry J DuBose [mailto:tjdubose@juno.com]
>>Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 10:12 AM
>>To: Multiple recipients of list SONOGRAPHERS-CONNECTION
>>Subject: Re: Entertainment Echos
>>
>>Sara, "How to fight it?” that is the question. If the FDA isn't going to
>enforce their own regulations, then what can anyone do? If you take a hammer
>to a machine being used by an unregistered person, you will be jailed for
>destroying their property.
>>
>>Obviously, stamping our feet and shouting "No, you can't do this without
>proper education and training" is not stopping it. Entertainment is
>proliferating... and it is all over TV. The public is demanding it as a part
>of having a "thoroughly modern pregnancy". Yet, legitimate medical practices
>have to beg the insurance and managed care corporations to be reimbursed for
>real diagnostic sonograms, and those are done in a rushed manner because
>there are too few educated sonographers and too many
>>patients in the waiting rooms. So the patients turn to their “friendly”
>Fetal Foto center.
>>
>>We appear to be losing this battle, which is why I favor the profession
>taking some kind of direct action. If the FDA, AMA, ACR, ACOG, AIUM, SDMS
>and the rest can not stop it, sonographers will have to go out and give the
>public better service. I realize that this is against everything I have ever
>believed in, but if no one is going to stop this entertainment thing, what
>else can we do? It will mean that sonographers will have to take more legal
>responsibility for our scans, and this is new
>>terrain that will have to be redefined. It isn't going to be easy, but we
>may have to take this next step if the "authorities" can't stop it.
>>
>>If we give them enough time the uncertified Fetal Foto folks will gain just
>enough skill to make “pretty baby faces”, but they will not recognize
>anatomy and pathology, and they won’t care because they are “nonmedical”.
>Yet it will be they who inherit the public’s goodwill because they are doing
>the fun part and what the public wants. It turns my stomach. Our students
>study hard for four (2+2) years without pay while spending thousands on
>their education, and they should not be bound by
>>these barriers while the uneducated, and in many cases unwashed, go about
>their merry way.
>>
>>It isn’t right.
>>Terry J DuBose, M.S., RDMS, FSDMS, FAIUM
