Re: 4D IMAGING
From: Dave Berck (djberck@yahoo.com)
Wed Nov 20 19:11:28 2002
OK. But tell me what's wrong with the following
scenerio -- certified sonographers who perform
appropriate diagnostic ultrasounds, but also perform
"entertainment" (or is the proper term "reassurance"
or "bonding") scans at additional charge, perhaps at a
different scanning session. For example, 4D scans are
perhaps best at around 28 weeks when one might not
otherwise do a diagnostic scan. And as for charging,
what on earth is wrong with charging for this? The
machine and sonographer time are expensive and have to
be paid for. Furthermore, people pay for baby pictures
after the baby is born and for precisely the same
purpose, namely, entertainment (or is it bonding . .
.) you get the idea. And as for demeaning the
profession, well, that's a pretty weak argument.
People admire sonographers who take good pictures.
We're the only ones who think this is demeaning. I
feel more demeaned by the $125 reimbursements for an
anatomic survey on a 300 pounder! Do I have a witness?
--- Jeanette Burlbaw <jburlbaw@kumc.edu> wrote:
> I'm with you Terry, Fetal Foto's is not to be
> considered in my
> discussion of availability. AND I think the answer
> is what the good
> doctor said,....please the public - diagnostic
> imaging with pleasant
> interaction and the gift of their baby's image.
> They leave smiling and
> singing your praises. I don't have the 3D but I
> give as many picture's
> as I feel are pretty and the parents understand and
> spend time talking
> to them during and after.
>
> It's just good medicine.
>
> Jeanette
>
> >>> duboseterryj@uams.edu 11/20/02 02:41PM >>>
> Of course there will always be some missed and wrong
> diagnoses, we are
> all human and nothing is perfect. However, our job
> as professionals is
> to minimize diagnostic mistakes... and proper
> education does make a
> difference, and certification is the way you
> demonstrate your knowledge
> to your patients.
>
> As far as "social scanning"... is that any reason to
> take the parent's
> money and not care about any possible problems?
> Will the "social
> scanners" make absolutely clear to the parents that
> they "don't care if
> the fetus has 3 legs, they will just point out 2"?
>
> I am not arguing against parents getting the videos,
> photos, etc that
> they want... I just object to those who don't have a
> clue about
> sonography, the uneducated, and (often) unwashed
> giving the profession a
> bad name.
>
> Peace, Terry J DuBose, M.S., RDMS
>
> ultrasound@obgyn.net writes:
> >there are always missed diagnoses - we look at
> patients inside other
> >patients and we're lookin at a work in progress.
> prenatal diagnosis,
> as
> >yogi berra put it, "ain't over til it's over."
> >
> >art
> >
> >At Wed, 20 Nov 2002, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >>In a message dated 11/20/02 12:03:01,
> duboseterryj@uams.edu writes:
> >>
> >>> But what about health care? True, we have found
> no documented harm
> fro the
> >>> sonic energy at sonographic levels and with
> "normal" medical usage,
> but
> >>> what about missed and wrong diagnoses? Don't
> we care about that
> any more?
> >>>
> >>And how do we get away from missed or incorrect
> diagnoses? Answer:
> Don't
> >>scan.
> >>
> >>Actually, if you're doing "social" scanning, then
> wouldn't you inform
> the
> >>patient up front that you're NOT looking real hard
> for subtle
> anomalies, an
> >>you shouldn't be held liable for missing something
> that a "regular"
> targett d
> >>scan would be expected to uncover?
> >>
> >>I don't see a problem with missed diagnoses in the
> context of cursory
> socia
> >>scanning... What's your duty to the patient in
> that case? To give
> them a go d
> >>picture to bond with. If it's clear up front that
> you're not looking,
> then
> >>you have no duty to look.
> >>
> >>Joe P.
> >
> >--
> >art fougner, md
> >ich bin ein New Yorker
>
> Peace, Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS
> Assistant Professor & Director, Diagnostic Medical
> Sonography Program
> University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, CHRP
> 4301 West Markham St. Mail Slot #563
> Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205 USA
> 501-686-6510
> DuBoseTerryJ@UAMS.edu
> http://www.io.com/~dubose/
> http://www.uams.edu/CHRP/dmshome.htm
> http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm
>
=====
David J. Berck, MD, MPH
|
|
