|
There seems to be some confusion regarding the
accreditation of sonographers. Until accreditation, there was no way of
knowing how many sonographers were working in Australia and what qualificaions
they possessed. There are nearly 3000 sonographers accredited, many of
whom are not radiographers. They may have been nurses, midwives,cardiac
technicians, overseas trained doctors, science graduates,
etc.
This is NOT registration as achieved by
the Queensland radiographers.
Sonographers have accreditation according to the
ultrasound course the individual has completed (or the length of experience, if
accredited under the 'grandfathering' clause). The sonographer is known as
an Accredited Medical Sonographer or AMS. Breast sonographers are known as
ABS.
The
Accreditation Register is managed by ASAR, but ASAR has no disciplinary powers
and individuals can only be asked to show cause (and may be removed) if they do
not complete the CPD requirements or pay the yearly subscription.
Many Queensland sonographers working in public
hospitals have also been registered as radiographers. I understand this is
because they are actually employed as radiographers. They do not need to
be accredited as a sonographer unless the radiologist they work with is claiming
a rebate for the patient who has an utrasound examination.
My personal feeling is that state registration for
sonographers would not be achieved without a commitment from those who are
privately employed and I don't know if that is what sonographers want to
happen. With the current form of accreditation we may have the
beginning of a national registration, but early days for that yet.
Sue Cummins
AIR rep on ASAR
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 9:35
PM
Subject: Re: [AIRNEWS] Costs of state
registration
Dear David
I am neither a radiographer and a sonographer
but the my wife is both and a member of the AIR (since graduation from
University).
I am a Chartered Accountant and a member of a self
regulated professional body. In addition to head off any critisism I was
not involved in the audit on HIH, Enron etc!
It would seem that the
recent discussion has gone a little off track.
It would seem that the
current debate stems not from the need to be reqistered in QLD but rather the
cost and the reasons behind it. We all acknowledge that being a
professional comes with obligations but why can you not have a national
registration scheme.
Surely, constitutional concerns notwithstanding,
there could be a central database established for all paracticing Medical
Imaging (be they diognostic, theraputic or sonaographic) Technologists?
This database could be accessed by the relevant State Boards thus
reducing the costs duplicated by each state board? The information could
be accessed by the relevant parties and the needs of each state government
could be addressed.
And whilst on the topic Sonographers get over the
distinction please - you all started as radiographers of some type and lets
face it you can't be a sonograpgher without first being a radiographer so why
the snobbery attached to your chosen specialisation as a
sonographer?
By all means be a profession but it would seem that it is
only the apathy of those who are not members of the national body for
Radiographers (Sonographers see the comment above) - the AIR, that have
themselves to blaim. By having practicing radiographers who are not
members of a professional body (the AIR) you have left yourselves open to
critisisim and now find your profession controlled and administered by the
government. And on the topic of professionalism - stop the screams
and crys about CPD - please - other professions have had this for
decades.
Become professional and get the standing that I believe you
all deserve!
Regards
Scott Duffy
FCA
ASIA
From: "David Leslie"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: AIRNEWS
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002
18:27:57 +1100
To: "AIRNEWS"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [AIRNEWS] Costs
of state registration
From: "David Leslie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi
Ron and all,
no Ron not having a go at you at all. Your posting was
the last in the line
which prompted my contribution.
I thought the
answers were solid enough. It may be a bit of chicken or egg,
which came
first, registration or accountability. I see both as
being
complimentary. The issue may be somewhat legal, but without a
registration
process, then accountability and independance cannot be
had.
Under current law, radiation licences can only control use of
radiation.
They cannot be accounting for issues involving ethics,
liability, or braoder
professional conduct. They only cover use of
ionising radiation, so are not
even a prerequisite for practicing U.S. or
MRI. That's a significant legal
reason why our professional control
cannot rely on radiation licencing
alone.
If registration does
more harm than good, then I do not hear this from the
other "Registered
medical professionals" which I listed. Each state has
it's Medical
Board, Nurses Board, etc which regulates the professions to
ensure
protection of public and ensure levels of competency. In
the
Australian Constitution health is a matter for State jurisdiction,
not
Federal,so unfortunately I see National registration as a legal furfy
for
now, unless the Constitution is changed. We are in the same
boat as any
other profession and will have to live with the legal
anomalies of our
Constitution. I do not know what standing the
national registration of
sonographers, which contributors have referred
to, means. If it is simply a
list of people who hold a
qualification in ultrasound which the ASUM or AIR
deem as appropriate,
then the so called national registration may have no
legal standing what
so ever. More feedback please from those involved.
Until we are
a registered and accountable profession then our actions will
always be
deemed to be supervised by some one else, exactly your point
about
compromising our position under the direction of an employer.
I don�t see
that this compromises us legally at all because we are
not in a position to
hold an independant professional opinion about the
management of patients.
We can give as many opinions or "reports� to
junior, senior doctors or
nursing staff as we like, but at the moment it
is up to THEM not us what
they do with the information. Why?
Because it is them, not us who, as the
registered professional, is
responsible for the management of that case.
Sure, I know of
radiographers who have been prosecuted for things like
fraud, or assault,
or even the wrong examination i.e. not following
direction, but I don�t
know of any radiographer who has been sued for
damages because of their
independant patient management or interpretation of
results.
This
brings me to the nursing profession which I think offers a good
analogy
to our own development as a profession. Nursing is a registered
profession
which has undergone large changes in the last twenty years,
from a
supporting arm of the medical profession working under the
direction of
doctors, to an independent profession with its own legal
standing,
independence and growing expertise eg Nurse Practitioners.
Opposition to
this role development seems at odds with our own
aspirations in e.g.
providing radiographic reporting. I was
involved in the development of the
Nurse Practitioner role in SA and saw
then how being a registered profession
gave "clout" to the role
development in the face of medical opposition. Also
how having a Nurses
Registration Board, who could give legal standing to new
roles and
responsibilities, could facilitate the role development process
whilst
safeguarding the expectations of patients. There was
immediate
control of the professional boundaries and consequential action
could be
taken by the Board to ensure standards of practice.
I
would therefore argue that we will have no legal right to perform
limited
reporting or other independant, unsupervised activities where our
opinion as
professionals counts, until we have the legal standing and
professional
control that is provided by being a registered
profession.
Thank you for persevering with the long
contribution.
Regards,
David Leslie.
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 30 November 2002 2:27
AM
To: AIRNEWS
Subject: RE: [AIRNEWS] Costs of state
registration
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David
I take
it that the comment is directed to me. A solid answer to my
questions
would better. Nice to see someone who cares about the
profession.
Teresa knows my position on promoting radiation science
as a profession,
which
hasn't changed.
The reason I am against
registration is because we are not ready for it.
Registration for
registration's sake is pointless & is guaranteed to do more
harm than
good. I am, however open to hear any reasonable justification
for
it
at this point in history.
The greatest opportunity we
ever had was lost on the ultrasound issue. Now
look at the mess
sonography is in and the general lack of participation and
control by
medical imaging practitioners.
We are already accountable for our
actions under law. As things stand now,
that position is compromised
every day when a medical imaging practitioner
who
is employed is
forced to compromise his legal position under the direction
of
a
superior or employer.
There is no political outcome or benefit to
registration for the sake of
registration. Until we establish political
& professional autonomy first,
then
registration is just another
brick in the wall.
Registration cannot give you professional
independance, political clout,
self
determination, provider numbers or
professional respect.
Who says that radiation scientists are not
competent? Who are these
unprofessional incompetent people & who is
judging them? Just where do
these
ideas that medical radiation
scientists are incompetent come from? Why is it
being promoted here as a
justification for "registration?
I personally do not know any of the
people you describe. I do know, however,
a
lot of production workers
who have no professional freedom or standing.
My bottom line is that
the single most important issue that we should be
promoting is the
legally recognised right & responsibility to report plain
films at
the level of a non-specialist doctor.
When we have that, we will have
the right to self determination,
professional
autonomy, registration
and a cheap rebate provider number.
As an aside, I note that in NSW,
the NSWH refers only to Medical Radiation
Scientists. However in
hospitals, staff, public & MRS' themselves only use
the
term
"radiographer" or "X-Ray guy". You are also specifically
prohibited
from
offering an opinion, yet nurses & junior doctors
routinely do so. But if you
work with specialists & are respected,
they invariably ask your opinion.
This
is the culture that we
ourselves are unwilling to change.
Registration won't fix
this.
By the way I am 100% against the establishment of clinical
nurse
practitioners.
Ron
> From: Teresa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Well said David,
now instead of the nurse practitioner deciding what x
> rays a
patient needs, how about a radiographer consultant or practitioner
>
triaging the patient and telling the nurse what he/she needs. then do
the
x
> ray, give an opinion and we are on our way to be truly
equal professionals
> in our own right.
>
> Teresa
Ong.
>
>
> At 11:40 AM 11/29/02 +1100, you wrote:
>
> From: "David Leslie"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Time
to respond,
> >I suppose we have had it very easy and very
cheap for too long. But if
we
> >wish to remain as technical
people with no , with
> >no , with no , and of course the
luxury of
> >no public accountability then we can continue to
remain an
unregistered
> >group of health fringe
dwellers.
> >
> >If on the other hand we wish to
persue self determination,
accountability,
> >the
possibility of our own , the we
> >deserve from fellow health
professionals and have a political voice in
our
> >own right
then we should persue professional registration.
Unfortunately
>
>there are some costs that go with that.
> >Who are we
keeping out? Those who do not act responsibly, those
who
are
not
> >adequately qualified to perform their
duties competently, those who
may
> >bring our profession
into disrepute by irresponsible/incompetant
practice or
>
>those who may exploit or abuse clients.
> >
>
>Yes their are legal ramifications, legal requirements to be met
and
> >responsibilities and costs incurred but welcome to the
big league of
health
> >professionals who are registered in
their own right i.e. nurses,
doctors,
> >physios,
podiatrists, most of whome can put their own brass plate
on
street
> >door and deliver services to patients with
public accountability
without
> >hiding behind a senior
professional group.
> >
> >Just who is the rural
dishwasher: is it the well respected nurse
> >practitioner who
knows how to deliver unsupervised emergency cardiac
care
>
>including drug therapy to the beleaguered retiree caravaner
travelling
the
> >outback, who may as the consequence of
their condition also benefit
from
an
> >X-ray.
Perhaps until we can do more than just take the X-ray
and
think
> >we're shit hot for doing that!, then we deserve
to stay on the same
level as
> >skilled production
workers.
> >
> >Stop whinging!!!
>
>
> >Regards,
> >David Leslie
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Friday, 29 November 2002
12:47 AM
> >To: AIRNEWS
> >Subject: Re: [AIRNEWS]
Costs of state registration
> >
> >
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >I
have yet to see the reason or value of the existence of the
concept
of
> >registration for medical imaging
practitioners.
> >Can some one enlighten me?
>
>Does the rural dishwasher who does a 5 day course also apply for
and
receive
> >the "registration"?
> >I do not
see any benefit in registration especially in the promotion
of
>
>radiation scientists as professionals in their own right. Exactly
who
is
it
> >that we want to "keep out"?
>
>My personal view is that the EPA license is more than
adequate.
> >
> >Am I missing something here? Who
dreams up these ideas? Whats the
point?
> >Whats
>
>their motive? Where's the benefit?
> >
>
>Ron
>
>
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
This
message is being broadcast by AIRNEWS,
the Australian Institute of
Radiography list Server
Send messages to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For assistance send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Commands should be sent to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions expressed on this list
are not necessarily those of the
moderator, his assistants or those of
the A.I.R.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
This message
is being broadcast by AIRNEWS,
the Australian Institute of Radiography
list Server
Send messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
assistance send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Commands
should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions
expressed on this list are not necessarily those of the
moderator, his
assistants or those of the
A.I.R.
|
