Limited Scope Radiology vs Full Certification

RadMaster · Site Admin Joined: 09 Aug 2004 Posts: 179

Please read the following (somewhat edited) letter from a concerned user

hello,

I am a limited scope x-ray technician and have been for 7 years. EEGAD!! it is my opinion that schools that ARE NOT ACCREDITED, schools like this should NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SUCH A COURSE UNLESS THEY OFFER ADVANCMENT OPPURTUNITIES!!!!!!!!! These schools are only concerned with turning over profits and do not care about the futures of their students. why do these schools even exist?? there is hardly ANY DEMAND for a limited scope x-ray tech. the limited scope tech must go to another school completely to get a AART license and start all the way over from the beginning. (name removed) college system has yet to implement a "bridge program" for limited scope techs that wish to advance without taking a giant leap backwards. to me this whole thing is a big trap to get people to go to the (name removed) school thinking that they will be an x-ray tech but only to graduate with a license that is not even in demand. also, since the institution is not accredited, the limited scope tech feels cheated since all of their training is null and void. who in the radiology community is the voice for limited scope technicians???? limited scope nurses (LPN) are represented in the field of nursing and do not have to take backwards steps to advance, so how come the AART doesn't stick up for us and create oppurtunities for limited scope x-ray techs??? anyway, i'm not bitter or anything, (hee hee) i've just been wasting the majority of my 20s waiting for a bridge program to come up. i've been going to college in the meantime and if something doesn't become available to me soon, i will be pursuing my education in a different field and the radiology field will be losing a stellar technician. sorry i know y'all are sad. too bad nobody in the radiolgy field gives a damn about it's limited scope techs. y'all want us to stay where we are. thanx for hearing me vent, bye JDC (practical technologist in radiology) ooh it sounds so professional huh?? too bad i'm stuck in my job with crappy hours because most of the hospitals in the valley don't hire PTRs and i'm not likely to find another job with this pay. if i was an RT, i could do what i want and go where i wanna go. so until the "bridge" program exists, i'm stuck. i just turned 30. i got my license one year after i got out of the army when i was 23. i wanted to be an RT then but DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CIVILIAN X-RAY FIELD!!! cheers again JDC

NOTE: The ARRT does offer a limited scope exam. How about some other opinions on the subject?

Guest · Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:50 am Post subject:

I am an x-ray TECHNOLOGIST!! It bugs me soo much when people say technician. I did not spend that many years of my life giving up practically everything to study for a board and learn about the effects of radiation on a cellular level (seriously, who cares about in what stage of development the cell is in when its zapped) to be classified in the same category as someone who just points the tube and shoots it. The way we learned it was that technologists have knowlege and technicians are button pushers and you can teach a monkey to push a button. (All of my instructers were technologists and had been for a while and it was a sore spot with them)

allisonvanlent · Joined: 27 Mar 2008 Posts: 1

I have empathy for you. I see that they advertise those 14 month medical assisting/limited scope x ray technician (yes they call it technician) degrees.

at my school we have 24 months to complete our assocaites and prepare ourselves for the AART exam and 24 months and it is barely enough time..

those 14 month schools do seem like scams.

why don't you start a two year program (yes start over again) and just walk into it with an advantage of knowing some positioning and technical factors? it'd be rough starting over but worthwhile in the long run.
once you complete the program you could advance into CT, mammography, or even MRI.

I wouldn't blame the ARRT...I'd blame your school and instructors........
limited scope is good for small doctors offices so the ARRT saw the value in them....to save those small doctors offices money.

hjhogle · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject:

Please don't think that I'm ignoring this conversation.

But I have noticed that there are times when I weigh in with my most authoritative (opinonated) voice .. and the conversation dies. No one else posts.

So I'm going to wait and give lots of others a chance to do their thing ... and I'll comment later.

hjh, RT

CigarPete · Power User Joined: 21 May 2007 Posts: 112

Heather posts to tell us she's not going to post?

hunh?

Haha

hjhogle · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:58 am Post subject:

papa · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:31 am Post subject:

ok, this just bugs me....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/technician

Funny Bones · Joined: 09 Sep 2006 Posts: 21

I'm a second year student and work PRN at an ortho clinic where the lead tech is an LPT. He's more competent than many RT's that I work with at my hospital. He went through one of those technical school programs as mentioned above and has accumulated over five years experience.

The thing is... He's stuck as an LPT. To get his RT, he's gotta' go back through a 2-year program.

And personally, I don't have an issue with the whole "technician" vs "technologist" labeling thing.

hjhogle · Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 6:53 am Post subject:

One of the functions of an LPT is to allow facilities and physician offices to stay within the letter of the law, yet avoid paying for a fully-licensed imager. Potential for abuse of the position is high, and there are few, if any checks in place to prevent it. (Abuse not meaning assault on the employee with the limited license .. abuse meaning allowing/encouraging the employee to perform outside their scope of practice). "Quick" techs have neither the education nor experience needed when exposing the public to ionizing radiaton - a priority of the professional imager.

Having an LPT does not qualify someone to use the RT certification - that's why the certifications are not interchangable. Of course an LPT would have to complete an additional program in order to become eligible to take the national certification exam.

While your LPT may have accumulated 5 years experience as a limited technician in a orthopedic office, that simply qualifies him to work in an orthopedic office. It hardly prepares him for the variety of demands placed on an RT. If I wanted to interpret radiographs, I'd have to go to medical school - having accumulated 30 years of related experience would not entitle me to skip that.

There have been numerous similar threads in this forum and others. It is rare to find a radiographer (nationally certified RT) who supports limited licensure.