Patient ratio per tech..

American Association of Sleep Technologists
..............
American Association for Respiratory Care
..............
American Society of Electroneurodiagnostic Technologists

Moderators: SCNVsleep, labman2

Patient ratio per tech..

Postby JGOOD12 » Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:52 pm

Im not an AAST member, but does anyone have a copy of the requirement on the patient tech ratio, if there is one? My hospital has began to add an extra patient in the mix. Note, there are other techs normal to share the extra patient load, but Ive never worked for a lab who would do this without at least giving some incentive (more money or something).
JGOOD12
Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:52 am
Location: oklahoma

Postby RPSGT88athome » Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:28 pm

If your lab is not AASM accredited they can do whatever they want. 4 pts to 1 tech, 100 pts to 1 tech whatever.

RPSGT88
User avatar
RPSGT88athome
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2805
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:26 pm

Postby sleepguy » Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:49 pm

What does your Medical Director say about this?

If your lab IS accredited by the AASM, then:
2510 North Frontage Road, Darien, IL 60561 Telephone (630) 737-9700 Fax: (630) 737-9790
User avatar
sleepguy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:58 pm
Location: Indiana

Postby sleepadmin » Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:54 am

For further clarification,

The tech:patient ratio is an accreditation guideline published by the AASM; Free to download on their website (aasmnet.org). If you are not seeking accreditation, or do not wish to abide by industry standards, you are free to do as you wish.
User avatar
sleepadmin
Admin
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 2:30 pm

Postby RedSoxSleepGuy » Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:07 am

I heard not so long ago that the AASM was loosening its stance on the whole 2:1 ratio and 3:1 was going to not derail labs from becoming accredited....has anyone else heard this.....I want to say that a tech told me they heard it from a lecture at a conference.
RedSoxSleepGuy
Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:36 pm
Location: North Of Boston

Re: Patient ratio per tech..

Postby somnonaut » Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:19 pm

JGOOD12 wrote:Im not an AAST member, but does anyone have a copy of the requirement on the patient tech ratio, if there is one? My hospital has began to add an extra patient in the mix. Note, there are other techs normal to share the extra patient load, but Ive never worked for a lab who would do this without at least giving some incentive (more money or something).


Let's summarize:
1) Not a member of the American Association of Sleep Technologists
2) Having an issue with job demands, and wants to utilize guidelines (AAST's if available) to help sway the powers that be
User avatar
somnonaut
Senior Member
 
Posts: 14160
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:03 pm
Location: http://tinyurl.com/righteousdude

Postby polysomprincess » Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:25 pm

I heard not so long ago that the AASM was loosening its stance on the whole 2:1 ratio and 3:1 was going to not derail labs from becoming accredited....has anyone else heard this.....I want to say that a tech told me they heard it from a lecture at a conference.



I heard the same thing... my thoughts are never rely on what someone heard somewhere, at some time....hit up the AASM... and take a looky yourself...! :D
User avatar
polysomprincess
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Texas

Postby eBynslep » Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:47 am

The tech patient ratio is asked for some specific purposes. If your hospital has something to do with that particular accreditation, the medical director should act upon the issue. However, a guideline is somehow needed with those job demands.
eBynslep
New Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:12 am

Postby RedSoxSleepGuy » Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:25 am

[Polysompricess wrote: qI heard the same thing... my thoughts are never rely on what someone heard somewhere, at some time....hit up the AASM... and take a looky yourself...! uote]

I guess my thought was not so much if its in writing now, because I don't think it is but is it really being considered.....[/quote]
RedSoxSleepGuy
Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:36 pm
Location: North Of Boston

Postby RedSoxSleepGuy » Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:27 am

Okay, and I need a tutorial on how to quote other posts in those nice little boxes.....is there a procedure manual on how to use Binary so I don't look stupid?
RedSoxSleepGuy
Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:36 pm
Location: North Of Boston

Postby Rocklandish » Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:26 am

polysomprincess wrote:
I heard not so long ago that the AASM was loosening its stance on the whole 2:1 ratio and 3:1 was going to not derail labs from becoming accredited....has anyone else heard this.....I want to say that a tech told me they heard it from a lecture at a conference.



I heard the same thing... my thoughts are never rely on what someone heard somewhere, at some time....hit up the AASM... and take a looky yourself...! :D


Oh yeah, I was just recently told that a 2.5:1 ratio was going to be the new standard based on Texas being a trend setter. This was by a very well known lab manager in Southern Colorado.
User avatar
Rocklandish
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:39 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby somnonaut » Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:10 pm

RedSoxSleepGuy wrote:Okay, and I need a tutorial on how to quote other posts in those nice little boxes.....is there a procedure manual on how to use Binary so I don't look stupid?


"Use the button Luke, trust your senses."
Attachments
quote.jpg
quote.jpg (1.09 KiB) Viewed 8273 times
User avatar
somnonaut
Senior Member
 
Posts: 14160
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:03 pm
Location: http://tinyurl.com/righteousdude

Postby goudasleep » Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:15 am

3:1 will sweep our industry like wildfire in the next two years.
User avatar
goudasleep
Senior Member
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 8:37 am
Location: Tejas

Postby Rocklandish » Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:50 am

goudasleep wrote:3:1 will sweep our industry like wildfire in the next two years.


I think you are right gouda. I have done it more than I would like to say. For the most part it is not all that difficult..........until you get those 3 patients :(
User avatar
Rocklandish
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:39 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby j.turner999 » Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:15 pm

I'd hate to do 3:1 pulmonary
User avatar
j.turner999
Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:55 am
Location: Right here

Next

Return to AAST/AARC/ASET

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron