Letter to American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers

17 September 1999

Mr. Dale Cyr, MBA RDMS RDCS
Executive Director
American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers
600 E Jefferson Plaza, Ste 360
Rockville, MD 20852-1150

Dear Mr. Cyr:

The Society for Vascular Ultrasound (SVU) commends the American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers for development of the proposed "Draft Policy on Continued Competency Requirements." An ongoing examination of continuing education requirements in the sonography professions indicates the commitment by ARDMS to ensure high quality patient care. SVU also is pleased to have been given the opportunity to comment on this draft.

SVU agrees completely with the rationale expressed in the draft policy: today's environment of rapidly changing technologies and their application makes continuing education mandatory for the provision of high quality patient care.

SVU also supports the modifications proposed for documenting continued competency requirements (CCRs) and agrees that the "rolling" tracking system will be of benefit to registrants without compromising public health.

SVU has strong reservations regarding some of the requirements proposed for Category B credit. In-house credit, such as contact hours, hospital staff meetings, and hospital rounds are rarely of significant educational benefit to a Sonographer or Vascular Technologist. We recognize that these meetings and rounds can provide significant education in some academic or clinical settings and suggest that credit could be awarded for these programs, if properly documented and clearly applicable to practice.

SVU supports the concept of providing category B credit for teaching or authoring textbooks or scientific papers providing that the activity is strictly pertinent to the field.

SVU is most concerned about the proposal regarding awarding credit for "courses containing professional enhancement or personal growth content." While courses in ethics, communications, and self-improvement can be very worthwhile and useful to some of the job functions of Sonographers and Vascular Technologists, they do little to enhance their knowledge, skill, and ability necessary to perform sonography or vascular testing.

We recognize that other examples, such as personnel management, computer training, and budget and finance, are directly relevant to managerial functions of some registrants and may be appropriate education for mangers. However, SVU believes that that the ARDMS continuing competency requirements should be designed to ensure that registrants enhance their knowledge and remain current in the clinical practice of Sonography or Vascular Technology. Thus, SVU encourage that ARDMS accept a college-level course in ultrasound physics for example. SVU commends those Sonographers and Vascular Technologists who are managers who seek continuing education in management, but believes that it is inappropriate for ARDMS to accept education in that field as demonstrating continued competence in sonography or vascular technology.

SVU believes that thirty (30) hours of continuing education in subjects directly relevant to the clinical aspects of sonography and vascular technology is not excessive or unreasonable. Continuing education credit now can be obtained by attending many local and national meetings, through reading of various journals, and increasingly by participating in web-based learning opportunities. Registrants do not have an undue burden, financial or otherwise, to acquire thirty hours in any three-year period.

Additionally, the increasing trend - often driven by management for cost reasons - of crosstraining individuals into more than one ultrasound specialty makes the need for and documentation of pertinent and clinically useful continuing education more important than ever. SVU is concerned that registrants can hold credentials in specialties in which no specific continuing education is obtained. The ARDMS should not facilitate this by lowering the standard by which continuing education is evaluated. SVU suggests that ARDMS consider development of guidelines for practitioners who crosstrain in additional specialties. We would also encourage ARDMS to require CME that is relevant to each specialty in which the registrant is clinically active.

SVU's "Guidelines for Evaluation of Credentialling for Vascular Technologists" discusses the requirements for a credentialling body to ensure that it tests for "the knowledge, skill, and ability necessary for an individual to perform vascular testing." Those guidelines also state "that the credentialling body "must have in place a procedure for measuring continuing competency," i.e., the knowledge, skill, and ability necessary for an individual to perform vascular testing. SVU is concerned that if ARDMS begins to accept as appropriate continuing education for subjects such as "self improvement," the ARDMS process would fall short of the requirements necessary to maintain SVU's endorsement.
SVU appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed "Draft Policy on Continued Competency Requirements" and offers to continue to work with ARDMS in further development of this policy.

Sincerely,
SVU
Paula Heggerick, RVT RDMS FSVU,
SVU President

cc: Joan Baker, RDMS, President, SDMS