|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: sonographers right to give information to patientFrom: DuBose, Terry (DuboseTerryJ@exchange.uams.edu)Wed Mar 24 12:55:09 1999
-----Original Message----- From: roger sanders [SMTP:sanders87529@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 11:16 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: sonographers right to give information to patient I just recieved this letter from a sonographer I trained. I am away from my files. Can anyone help? "today we were told by one of our Radiologists not to tell the patient the sex of the baby. And to keep our narrative while scanning the fetus VERY GENERIC. And we can't tell them how far along they are, even if the measurements are equal and they are intelligent people and they can read it on the screen, while we measure!!!. I am having heart failure, but keeping my cool. I have to present the sonographer's point of view at the next Radiologist QA meeting, so I need ammunition. If you could just steer me to the right journals for articles concerning the importance of the bonding between parents and fetus and maybe an article about the sonographer's role. I just haven't kept up with all the journals. Is there any way you could help me??" _________________________________________________________ Dear Roger Sanders & students: _________________________________________________________ There have been articles about parent-fetal bonding in the Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography (JDMS), unfortunately I don't recall the exact issues. Perhaps the Editor, Julia Drose can tell us the specific issues and authors. There are also other publications (many) concerning sonographer-patient interactions. This kind of argument drives me a little nuts. To not allow a trained, experienced sonographer to say anything to the patient does not enhance the patient's confidence in the examination they expect and for which they have paid. In a chapter on Ethics, William Meacham, Ph.D. states in part: "QUALITY OF FEEDBACK DURING THE EXAMINATION" "Regardless of whether it is done as part of routine prenatal care or only in selected circumstances, there appears to be little doubt of the benefit of good quality feedback to the woman during the examination. A number of studies have revealed that showing the woman the image and giving her a running commentary about it is good for both mother and child. Giving lots of feedback reduces maternal anxiety and produces more pleasant emotional experiences than hiding the image and giving only a summary after the exam.... The babies whose mothers had received lots of feedback in these studies were born with fewer complications, had greater birth weight and were less irritable after birth than those whose mothers had received only summary information. " "This is to be expected. We are curious and intelligent beings. It's in our nature to want to know what's going on around us. Satisfying this curiosity fulfills our nature; restricting information frustrates it, resulting in more anxiety and stress." Dr. Meacham continues: "How much should the sonographer tell the patient? The sonographer is, by and large, not a licensed physician and is not qualified to make [issue] medical diagnoses. But he or she must have enough knowledge to know whether a scan is good or not and will certainly have acquired a working recognition of normal anatomy and the various abnormalities." "The benefits of sharing information with the mother and family are numerous. Doing so is rewarding; it increases recognition of one's connectedness with them as human beings. It also mitigates the potential ill effects of relying on electronic techniques instead of human intuition, as discussed above. Sharing knowledge treats the woman as a person and not merely an object to be scanned." Dr. Meacham concludes a subsection with: "It is unfortunate that sonographers and MDs see themselves, at times, as adversaries. The best approach would be to view each other as partners, each bringing a particular expertise to the task of providing good medical care for the woman and her baby."
>From Meacham W. in: DuBose TJ: FETAL SONOGRAPHY, W. B. Saunders, 1996, p. Also the following. Dr. Ken Taylor, Yale University, addressed this question in the Nov/Dec., 1982, issue of the SDMS Newsletter. His own words are clear and concise: ".... There is a very important difference between sonographers and other imaging technologists. Other technologists may reject an image because of sub-optimal technical quality, but the sonographer usually rejects over 95% of the scans because they do not provide the diagnosis. The sonographer must make the diagnosis and be able to interpret the scan to document the presence of any abnormalities. This is the unique responsibility of the sonographer." It is my opinion that we are Diagnostic Sonographers, and as Dr. Taylor has stated, we must make the diagnosis, this does not mean that we issue the report, prescribe the medications or therapy, or do the surgery. But we do MAKE the diagnosis. Now the problem of telling the patient specific pathologic information does appear to fall into the realm of practicing medicine, but to not be able to talk to our patients treats us and them as less than human, as Dr. Meacham states above. The line between being human to our patient and practicing medicine is a bit fuzzy, and it does take some judgement on the part of the sonographer to know when the line is near... but that is why we are Diagnostic Sonographers and not Techs. For more reading see: . James A E, Bundy A L, Fleischer A C, et al; "Legal Aspects of Diagnostic Sonography" in SEMINARS in ULTRASOUND, CT and MR; Grune & Stratton, Inc., 6:209; June, 1985. . Gill K, "Legal Liability and Sonography: An Update"; J Diag Med Sonography 1992; 8:93-96. . "SDMS Code of Conduct"; Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers, 12770 Coit road, Suite 508; Dallas, TX 75251. . ARDMS Executive Office; "History of the ARDMS" in The American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers: Directory & Information Booklet, 1991; ARDMS, 2368 Victory Parkway, Suite 510, Cincinnati, Ohio 45206, 1991; p. 4. . Lumley J. Through a glass darkly: ultrasound and prenatal bonding. Birth. 17(4):214-7, 1990 Dec. 4. Langer M. Reinold E. [Psychological aspects of diagnostic methods in pregnancy]. [Review] [18 refs] [German] Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie. 111(6):368-75, 1989. Good luck. Peace, Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS, FAIUM University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, USA Director, Diagnostic Sonography Program http://www.uams.edu/chrp/dmshome.htm <http://www.uams.edu/chrp/dmshome.htm> VOICE: 501-686-6510 FAX: 501-686-6513 Chair, http://www.obgyn.net/us/us.htm <http://www.obgyn.net/us/us.htm> http://www.io.com/~dubose/ <http://www.io.com/~dubose/> Now is the time for all good folks to come to the aid of the Earth. ----
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ultrasound@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: terry.dubose@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 05:39:47 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.