Patient ratio per tech..

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

Moderators: labman2, SCNVsleep

Postby sleepguy » Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:48 pm

I would like to see the rationale the AASM would use to change the 2:1 ratio. When for year after year after year after year ... they have stated that the 2:1 ratio is "Technician staffing must be adequate to address the workload of the center and assure the safety of patients."

How do they justify having the patients "less safe"? And since they go on and on and on in the practice parameters about evidence based standards - with Level 1 based evidence - what studies will they cite?
User avatar
sleepguy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:58 pm
Location: Indiana

Postby Rocklandish » Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:54 pm

sleepguy wrote:I would like to see the rationale the AASM would use to change the 2:1 ratio. When for year after year after year after year ... they have stated that the 2:1 ratio is "Technician staffing must be adequate to address the workload of the center and assure the safety of patients."

How do they justify having the patients "less safe"? And since they go on and on and on in the practice parameters about evidence based standards - with Level 1 based evidence - what studies will they cite?


They will most likely use the same rational that they are using to turn a blind eye now. They have to know that it is happening.
User avatar
Rocklandish
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:39 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby Rocklandish » Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:56 pm

Rocklandish wrote:
sleepguy wrote:I would like to see the rationale the AASM would use to change the 2:1 ratio. When for year after year after year after year ... they have stated that the 2:1 ratio is "Technician staffing must be adequate to address the workload of the center and assure the safety of patients."

How do they justify having the patients "less safe"? And since they go on and on and on in the practice parameters about evidence based standards - with Level 1 based evidence - what studies will they cite?


They will most likely use the same rational that they are using to turn a blind eye now. They have to know that it is happening.


They will sure as hell fine you for being late on your app! :twisted:
User avatar
Rocklandish
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:39 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby #42dreamweaver » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:59 pm

They will sure as hell fine you for being late on your app! :twisted:[/quote]

DING DING DING! Give Rock a cigar, he hit it on the head. The AA$M will accredit anyone nowadays. Either fully or with the magical provisions that must be met in 5 years. A friend of mine sent me to a pulmonary Dr. who had a dormered house as his office/sleep lab. The upstairs was a 3 bed sleep lab, an open area against the wall was a control room, there was a bathroom/clean/dirty utility room, and a storage closet with plumbing and electrical in it. I went in and going by the rule book told the Dr. he was going to have to spend some money to get the place AA$M ready. He said no way, thanked me for coming and went with someone else. He got accredited with provisions.
User avatar
#42dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:37 am

Postby countnsheep » Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:02 am

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


wanna pick my lottery numbers for me? :D
User avatar
countnsheep
Senior Member
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:49 am
Location: Forever Sleep Walking

Previous

Return to AAST/AARC/ASET

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron