Interpretive Fluoro

[Chris Alston <alstonc@odrge.odr.georgetown.edu>]

>Date:         Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:31:01 -0700
>Reply-To: gaw@usa.net
>Sender: Medical Physics Listserver <medphys@lists.wayne.edu>
>From: Jerry White <gaw@USA.NET>
>Organization: Colorado Associates in Medical Physics
>Subject:      Interpretive Fluoro
>X-To:         73002.655@compuserve.com
>To: Multiple recipients of list MEDPHYS <MEDPHYS@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU>
>
>
>         ** Mail from Medphys Listserver **
>If you reply to this message, it will be posted on Medphys for all the
>subscribers to review ...
>
>
>The JCAHO had (and I assume still has) a prohibition against
>"interpretive fluoroscopy" by non-physicians. Generally a bit of fluoro
>by the tech to get the patient into position has bee acceptable, but
>I've been asked about a different situation.  I'd like some opinions.
>
>Some pacemaker leads need to be checked for deterioration from time to
>time. I've found that the CCL techs fluoro the patient to locate the
>leads, fluoro to decide on the best position to image for the defect
>then do a cine run to collect data. At a later time a cardiologist
>reviews the images and makes a diagnosis.
>
>I pontificated that this was not acceptable, the Doc should be looking
>at the screen during the fluoro and cine.  It seems to have crossed the
>(fuzzy) line into a task that should be done by a physician.  Any
>agreement or disagreement?  Does this happen elsewhere?
>
>
>Jerry White
>gaw@usa.net
>