3:1 pt to tech ratio

[truckerdave1970]

It seems like this is happening and becoming the rule, rather than the execption.

I know of a chain of labs running 3:1 every night. In labs where there are only 3 beds there is only ONE TECH in the building, alone with 3 pts.

Does anyone know how they are getting away with this? (Yes, they are accredited by the AASM.)

I thought this was not allowed except in unforeseen circumstances.

Would you be willing to work in such a lab?

[somnonaut]

Correct Dave, AASM guidelines do call for routine ratio to be 2:1 max.
No I would not work in a lab like that.
Call the Academy and ask them directly. They would be happy to provide guidance.
http://www.aasmnet.org/accred_centerhome.aspx
Accreditation Department: (630) 737-9700
http://www.aasmnet.org/ContactUs.aspx

[Midnight Rider]

Are these labs privately-owned by MDs/ individuals or hospital owned?

[truckerdave1970]

Are these labs privately-owned by MDs/ individuals or hospital owned?

privately owned, however they have at least one location that is somehow connected to a hospital.
The arrangement as I understood it was the techs worked for the company under the guidance and direction of the hospital.
something like a temporary worker works at a job site but is actually employed by the staffing agency, that was my uinderstanding

[Midnight Rider]

I remember talking to a vendor after their presentation several years ago. In their personal view it appeared that labs doing 3:1 were more than likely in a region of the country with poor insurance coverage. If a fair number of employers in a particular area did provide health insurance coverage it was little more than catastrophic coverage and did not pay for procedures such as psgs and the like.
In my view it's most likely a combination of that and the owners using lab revenues as a personal ATM; similar to what we saw with places like Total Sleep Diagnostics a few years back. In any case a place such as yours being hellbent on that sort of staffing will not change until they have difficulty recruiting and retaining employees. Even at that unfortunately there will be some poor unknowing fool needing experience and a paycheck willing to suffer through a workplace such as you describe.

[Murcielago]

I have seen labs in this area CANCEL scheduled patients and calling off the tech if they couldn't maintain a 3:1 ratio.

[RayMeece]

say whatever you want about insurance reimbursement, blah blah, blah.

It's a greed issue - or as the business folks like to say "the tech's time is more efficient if we do 3 at a time." Gee whiz, why stop at 3? lets do 5 at a time!!

Fact is, the AASM guidelines say a ratio of 2 to 1 is "usual", and 3:1 in rare cases.

I wish they would just leave it at 2:1

[Midnight Rider]

Once these manufacturers of sleep testing systems get off their collective asses and develop wireless technology for in-lab testing our corporate overlords will then demand 4 or 5:1 and not think twice about it. But even today neither the AASM nor AAST will advocate anything construed to be restraint of trade and demand with hard and fast rules that 2:1 or less is the only acceptable patient load. Nor will they lobby third-party payers to that effect.

Another example of this is the fact of not having hard and fast regulations as to who can manage AASM accredited labs. No demand of an experienced RPSGT with at least an AAS, preferably BA/BS+. With this lack of regulation RRTs or REEGTs or RNs with no sleep background can slide into the role of manager and no one's the wiser.

[burchab1]

i work in a lab that does 3:1 for adults and if we have children it is 2:1. It really is not bad. I do 3 patients alone along with scoring them. Not to mention if you have 3 patients scheduled you are way less likely to be called off or have to leave when your patients do not show up. In today's environment sleep labs need to do what they can to stay profitable. Years ago we had to go to scoring on the go at night and eliminate the daytime scoring techs in most places. 3:1 ratio's have been around for years now. As I have said in other posts, if you don't want to run 3 patient's, don't work there. For me, I need the job and to be honest, I have not seen any issues. Oh and by the way, I have run 4:1. As long as your patient's are not very ill, there is no problems.
If you can find a good 2:1 lab that doesn't score on the fly, jump on it.

[truckerdave1970]

i work in a lab that does 3:1 for adults and if we have children it is 2:1. It really is not bad. I do 3 patients alone along with scoring them. Not to mention if you have 3 patients scheduled you are way less likely to be called off or have to leave when your patients do not show up. In today's environment sleep labs need to do what they can to stay profitable. Years ago we had to go to scoring on the go at night and eliminate the daytime scoring techs in most places. 3:1 ratio's have been around for years now. As I have said in other posts, if you don't want to run 3 patient's, don't work there. For me, I need the job and to be honest, I have not seen any issues. Oh and by the way, I have run 4:1. As long as your patient's are not very ill, there is no problems.
If you can find a good 2:1 lab that doesn't score on the fly, jump on it.

and that's why sleep labs across the US are screwing techs!

we let them!

[Midnight Rider]

i work in a lab that does 3:1 for adults and if we have children it is 2:1. It really is not bad. I do 3 patients alone along with scoring them. Not to mention if you have 3 patients scheduled you are way less likely to be called off or have to leave when your patients do not show up. In today's environment sleep labs need to do what they can to stay profitable. Years ago we had to go to scoring on the go at night and eliminate the daytime scoring techs in most places. 3:1 ratio's have been around for years now. As I have said in other posts, if you don't want to run 3 patient's, don't work there. For me, I need the job and to be honest, I have not seen any issues. Oh and by the way, I have run 4:1. As long as your patient's are not very ill, there is no problems.
If you can find a good 2:1 lab that doesn't score on the fly, jump on it.

and that's why sleep labs across the US are screwing techs!

we let them!

Almost from its inception the field of sleep technology has bent over backwards to please the whims of drs. and hospitals alike. Rather than shoring up entry requirements and establishing 1 or 2 year training programs affiliated with community colleges a new cottage industry was born with short-term training schools, much like you'll see for Microsoft certifications. It was a way for the owners of these programs to get off night shift permanently and earn a living away from direct patient care, and be looked on as entrepreneurs. However long term it did this field a great disservice. Medicine and healthcare with its degree-creep abounds with nurses carrying multiple degrees, RTs with 4-year degrees, physical therapists, audiologists , perfusionists, etc.....all requiring up to a doctoral level of education. After almost 4 decades for me in this biz, when are they going to shut the door to ojt's? Physicians and administrators see this, which is why sleep technology is not an equal to the other areas of medicine.

And now we have the CCSH credential, giving some techs hope that they can be a day person again. Trouble is, the BRPT is allowing NP's and PA's to take the exam. Who carries more clout in the eyes of healthcare; a sleep tech with MAYBE an AAS or a NP or PA with a graduate if not a doctoral degree?

Painful changes needed to have been made during the go-go 80's and 90's, but too many were simply concerned with lining their pockets rather than advancing the greater good of sleep technology.