new 3 to 1 patient ratio lanquage approval

American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Accreditation, policies, politics... NOT FOR SCORING QUESTIONS PLEASE

Moderators: SCNVsleep, labman2

new 3 to 1 patient ratio lanquage approval

Postby labman2 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:17 pm

This just in...

Disappointed in this 3 to 1 patient ration ratio to say the least. I thought at first it was a typo and meant to be "under UNUSUAL circumstances. I can not see this as inproving the stated goals of patient care and safety. Now , it comes down to what is the definition of efficiency . I think I know that though.

Dear Accredited Sleep Disorders Center,

Over the past year, selected sleep disorders centers accredited by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine participated in an assessment of current laboratory procedures to identify areas for improved patient care and safety as well as efficiency. The report resulting from this year-long assessment has assisted the Board of Directors in making strategic decisions related to policy for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep disorders.

After reviewing the final report, the Board of Directors amended Standard B-7 of the Standards for Accreditation of Sleep Disorders Centers. To ensure the highest quality of care and patient safety the standard continues to recommend a patient-to-technologist ratio of 2:1 for attended polysomnography, and now allows for a maximum ratio of 3:1. The revised standard states:

B-7 – Sleep Technicians and Technologists
AASM accredited sleep facilities must maintain appropriately trained, supervised, and, where required by state law, licensed sleep technologists. Technologist staffing must be adequate to address the workload of the sleep facility and assure the safety of patients. This includes a recommended patient to technologist ratio of 2:1 and a maximum patient to technologist ratio of 3:1 under usual circumstances for attended polysomnography.


A complete version of the current Standards for Accreditation of Sleep Disorders Centers may be downloaded at www.aasmnet.org/accreditation.aspx.

Sincerely,

The Accreditation Department
American Academy of Sleep Medicine


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



:cry: :cry: :cry:
User avatar
labman2
Moderator
 
Posts: 2942
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: LONG ISLAND NY

Postby RPSGT88athome » Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:53 pm

Labman I need the source for this letter. Your link does not open. The AASM website only has the 2008 standards. Where did this come from? I can't inform my Medical Director without a credible source.

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

Postby labman2 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:33 pm

RPSGT88athome wrote:Labman I need the source for this letter. Your link does not open. The AASM website only has the 2008 standards. Where did this come from? I can't inform my Medical Director without a credible source.

RPSGT88


I believe the new wording is now contained in the 2008 standards with a Feb 2011 date under B7 section
User avatar
labman2
Moderator
 
Posts: 2942
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: LONG ISLAND NY

Postby tiredjohnny1 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:51 pm

I know money is the bottom line but is any other medical board running around like a bully on the playground? Personally if my boss increases my work by 50% I will expect a 50% increase in wages. Obviously the AASM knows that most techs will just accept the additional patient and get no additional pay out of fear of unemployment. They are probably right. Everyone was upset about lower wages across the board because of the new tech credential. Well the docs just got a 50% increase in revenue and we got 50% more work-at the expense of the patient. Also, now that they can do 3 patients probably some techs who work at at labs with lower patient volumes just lost their job.


I did a cut and paste of the email:


American Academy of Sleep Medicine to me
show details 5:03 PM (1 hour ago)


If you are having trouble reading this e-mail, visit www.aasmnet.org to read the items from this update. This free update is delivered as a benefit of your AASM membership. Please see the subscription information at the end of the publication to add or cancel subscriptions.


Issue Date: 02/17/2011Dear Accredited Sleep Disorders Center,
Over the past year, selected sleep disorders centers accredited by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine participated in an assessment of current laboratory procedures to identify areas for improved patient care and safety as well as efficiency. The report resulting from this year-long assessment has assisted the Board of Directors in making strategic decisions related to policy for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep disorders.
After reviewing the final report, the Board of Directors amended Standard B-7 of the Standards for Accreditation of Sleep Disorders Centers. To ensure the highest quality of care and patient safety the standard continues to recommend a patient-to-technologist ratio of 2:1 for attended polysomnography, and now allows for a maximum ratio of 3:1. The revised standard states:
B-7 – Sleep Technicians and Technologists
AASM accredited sleep facilities must maintain appropriately trained, supervised, and, where required by state law, licensed sleep technologists. Technologist staffing must be adequate to address the workload of the sleep facility and assure the safety of patients. This includes a recommended patient to technologist ratio of 2:1 and a maximum patient to technologist ratio of 3:1 under usual circumstances for attended polysomnography.

A complete version of the current Standards for Accreditation of Sleep Disorders Centers may be downloaded at www.aasmnet.org/accreditation.aspx.

Sincerely,
The Accreditation Department
American Academy of Sleep Medicine
User avatar
tiredjohnny1
Senior Member
 
Posts: 929
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:58 pm
Location: Florida

Postby tiredjohnny1 » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:14 am

On second thought this is bad for even techs at busy labs. For some labs that have long wait times, this will just make those wait times shorter which is ok. But for the majority of labs its bad. Labs now can do 1 additional patient per night. For every 2 nights the lab is open thats one less tech they need. There are job losses coming very soon.
User avatar
tiredjohnny1
Senior Member
 
Posts: 929
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:58 pm
Location: Florida

Postby tiredjohnny1 » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:21 am

What other medical board is so bold that they would put it in writing as part of their accreditation standards: "we stillt believe based on scientific evidence that a certain standard insures patient safety but we promise we'll look the other way if you don't follow it."
User avatar
tiredjohnny1
Senior Member
 
Posts: 929
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:58 pm
Location: Florida

Postby poopdeckpappy » Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:33 pm

the standard used to be a recommended ration of 2:1, later changed to shall. So this is not a big deal. They are just saying you can go back to what you may have been previously doing. IMO, if you have 3 diagnostic studies you should be able to run 3. The issue, to me, is when you have schedulers who are not clinical and managers who are not they think 3 pts are 3 pts when we know this is not the case.
poopdeckpappy
Member
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:05 am

Postby poopdeckpappy » Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:33 pm

ooops, I obviously meant ratio.
poopdeckpappy
Member
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:05 am

Postby polysomprincess » Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:34 pm

wow.... :(
User avatar
polysomprincess
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Texas

Postby sleepguy » Fri Feb 18, 2011 5:35 pm

Wow is right. I remember the good old days of APSS when everyone sat together. When everyone talked together. When everyone drank together. We recognized the Docs and the PhDs for what they did, and what they brought to the table. And they recognized what we did and what we brought to the table.

Now we're relegated to ugly stepchild status (no offense to actual ugly stepchildren intended).

A month ago I lamented that the AASM should at least send us all KY for when they were shafting us. Seems like we're going to need a lot more lube.

The truly ironic part of all this, is if you read ANY of the practice parameters, they talk over and over about evidence based research. They claim that this change is based on a pilot program. I haven't seen any publication of the results of this pilot program. How many Centers were involved? What was the size of Centers in the study? Were the sites in-house? On the grounds? In BFE? Was it based on 10 hour shifts? 12 hour shifts? 13 hour shifts?

I'm about ready to call it quits and start brewing beer for a living.

[I apologize in advance to the moderators for being pretty freaking torqued off about this.]
User avatar
sleepguy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:58 pm
Location: Indiana

Postby polysomprincess » Fri Feb 18, 2011 5:38 pm

whers the dern like button when i need it... ?
User avatar
polysomprincess
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Texas

Postby maramara » Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:22 pm

the link will work if you delete the period at the end of it that is actually meant to end the sentence.
maramara
Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby TexasSleepguy » Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:45 pm

what happened to the days when you could stand pound your fist on the table and say WAKE UP. this would put directors and VPs at attention.
Now we have this New CEO who leans forward and says. I do understand your concerns and if this is too difficult maybe we should think about maybe finding you a postion where your needs can best be met and bring in someone with more confidence that can meet the hospitals needs.

OUCH....umm 3 to 1 you say!? Intemidation was always my best tool..now we have some CEO that uses my only skill. Its not fair I tell ya.
User avatar
TexasSleepguy
Moderator
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 5:05 am
Location: North Texas

Postby Jayhawkhenry » Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:15 am

So if I have a 6 bed lab I only need 2, poorly educated, ABSM credentialed techs to do the work. I love it $$$$$$$ :P

Now let's see.... a large number of labs are 4 beds and I would bet that once they are use to doing 3 patients each night, we can easily jump to 4 :1 ratio! After all, the tech will be ABSM certified! $$$$$

And we all know computers can score those records better that technologist can....... :shock:

8) break out the Bud Light cause here we go!
User avatar
Jayhawkhenry
Senior Member
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 8:38 pm
Location: Kansas

Postby polysomprincess » Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:19 am

LMAO HENRY! YOU ROCK...SO GLAD THINGS CHANGE FOR THE BETTER!
User avatar
polysomprincess
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Texas

Next

Return to AASM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests

cron