American Registry Of Radiologic Technologists Research Articles

Employment practices and breast cancer among radiologic technologists.

A case-control study of breast cancer and employment practices among female radiologic technologists was conducted. The cohort from which cases and controls were derived included over 105,000 female medical radiation workers certified by the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists during 1926-1980. Breast cancer cases (n = 528) were individually matched to an average of five control subjects (n = 2628) based on year of birth, year of certification, and length of follow-up. Procedures most commonly performed by controls included fluoroscopy (93%), portable radiographs (92%), routine radiographs (92%), multifilm procedures (87%), dental x-rays (46%), radium therapy (31%), orthovoltage (23%), and cobalt-60 (21%). Breast cancer was not significantly increased with occupational experience with any of these procedures. Furthermore, risk was not related to number of years worked with a particular procedure. This study is reassuring in indicating that medical radiation workers are not at substantial risk for developing radiation-induced breast cancer. However, because only surrogate measures of radiation exposure were available, possibility of a small risk cannot be discounted. Ongoing follow-up of this cohort for incident cancers will incorporate detailed exposure assessment schemes, providing additional information on effects of long-term low-dose radiation through occupation.

Cardiovascular - Interventional Technology Exam ReviewCardiovascular - Interventional Technology Exam Review, by Richard R. Carlton and Deborah Philpot. J. B. Lippincott Company. 1992. US $15.95. ISBN: 0-397-54945-8

Book ReviewCardiovascular - Interventional Technology Exam Review Mohd R. ArafahFRCP(C), FACP, FACC Mohd R. Arafah Search for more papers by this author Published Online:1 Jul 1994https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.1994.355aSectionsPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail AboutIntroductionThe book contained 500 multiple choice questions with 3 full length simulated exams and provided explanation for each answer. As well, it has full references for further study and 5 reference tables in appendix.The book has been written by an experienced team who has been involved in interventional procedures over one decade. It is directed mainly to junior fellows and nurses who are involved in these interventional procedures.To prepare for an exam like the one held by the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists, it is advisable to read over a textbook and then try to go over such exam review.The book is easy to review anytime. The questions tend to be practical and of clinical significance. A few points have been mentioned which one cannot learn from any textbook but only from being in the laboratory doing procedures.I think it will be a very useful review book to have in each technician’s library. Previous article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 14, Issue 4July-August 1994 Metrics History Published online1 July 1994 InformationCopyright © 1994, Annals of Saudi MedicineThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.PDF download

A health survey of radiologic technologists

A health survey of more than 143,000 radiologic technologists is described. The population was identified from the 1982 computerized files of the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists, which was established in 1926. Inactive members were traced to obtain current addresses or death notifications. More than 6000 technologists were reported to have died. For all registrants who were alive when located, a detailed 16-page questionnaire was sent, covering occupational histories, medical conditions, and other personal and lifestyle characteristics. Nonrespondents were contacted by telephone to complete an abbreviated questionnaire. More than 104,000 responses were obtained. The overall response rate was 79%. Most technologists were female (76%), white (93%), and employed for an average of 12 years; 37% attended college, and approximately 50% never smoked cigarettes. Radiation exposure information was sought from employer records and commercial dosimetry companies. Technologists employed for the longest times had the highest estimated cumulative exposures, with approximately 9% with exposures greater than 5 cGy. There was a high correlation between cumulative occupational exposure and personal exposure to medical radiographs, related, in part, to the association of both factors with attained age. It is interesting that 10% of all technologists allowed others to practice taking radiographs on them during their training. Nearly 4% of the respondents reported having some type of cancer, mainly of the skin (1517), breast (665), and cervix (726). Prospective surveys will monitor cancer mortality rates through use of the National Death Index and cancer incidence through periodic mailings of questionnaires. This is the only occupational study of radiation employees who are primarily women and should provide new information on the possible risks associated with relatively low levels of exposure.

Credentialing of the Cardiac Sonographer: The Need for Unification

Credentialing is a process in which a candidate submits to an examination established by a recognized board of examiners. If the candidate fulfills the standards established by the board, the candidate is then permitted to use a given title. For example, radiologic technologists complete a given course of study. After graduation these individuals are permitted to use the title radiologic technologist (RT) after their name. Once these individuals successfully complete the examination offered by the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists they are permitted the title ofRT(R), where the final R indicates registered. . In many cases a candidate's involvement in the examination and credentialing process is not mandated by law and is therefore voluntary. Gaining the credential-generally enhances the individual's professional status and provides a higher salary premium. In the case of radiologic technology there is a unified credentialing board. It acts independently but with the support of many technologist and physician groups interested in the credentialing process. The credentialing process must be differentiated from the accreditation process. Accreditation refers to the certification of training programs, not individuals. For most allied health professionals, accreditation of training programs is provided by the American Medical Association (AMA) Committee on Allied Health Education and Accreditation. This is a complex process in which interested professional societies define an allied health profession and petition the AMA for recognition. Once recognized, an independent body referred to as a Joint Review Committee (JRC) is established. Interested societies adopt documents of essentials and guidelines by which the JRC approves educational programs. Professional societies are generally meant to define

Radiologic technology and education: the role of the radiologist.

Present methods of accreditation of education of all programs in radiologic technology and credentialling of radiologic technologists are based on the activities of the Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology (JRC-ERT), and the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT), but with increasing role of government in this process. Because it is so important to radiology and radiologists that this process continue, radiologists are urged to play a more active role.

American Registry of Radiologic Technologists.

The fiscal year 1972–1973 sees the celebration of the fiftieth year of certification of radiologic technologists. At the present time over 70,000 radiologic technologists are registered in x-ray technology, nearly 2,000 in nuclear medicine technology, and over 500 in radiation therapy technology. The Registry has enjoyed the joint sponsorship of the American Society of Radiologic Technologists and the American College of Radiology. Its members provide a series of vital support services to the medical profession.

The emergence of the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists.

While growth in numbers of radiologic technologists is striking, equally significant is the change in the manner in which patients are examined. In 1922 90% of the patients were personally examined by a radiologist. Today his presence is needed in perhaps only 10% of the examinations, and pilot studies are under way to see if this percentage can be further reduced. Specific comprehensive curricula and extensive experience constitute the minimal requirements for admission to the certifying examination, and the R.T. (ARRT) designation is internationally recognized as the standard of excellence in radiologic technology.

Training of Radiologic Technologists

On Sept. 7, 1966, 350 people gathered at the University of Maryland Center of Adult Education as guests of the Division of Radiological Health of the United States Public Health Service to consider problems relating to the training of radiologic technologists (1). As stated by Dr. Donald R. Chadwick, Chief of the Division, the basic question the Conference considered was “What will it take to provide adequate numbers of qualified operators of x-ray machines in medicine?” Never before have so many persons, knowledgeable and experienced in the various facets of radiologic technology, been gathered under one roof: 22 radiologists including half the members of the Commission on Technologist Affairs of the American College of Radiology; 80 radiologic technologists (almost all of them teachers and supervisors and including the national officers of the American Society of Radiologic Technologists); officers of the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists, American Radiography Technology, and of the New York State Licensing Board; 10 physicists; representatives of labor and in-dustry, and a host of federal, state, and municipal public health officials. The Center of Adult Education is a large, new, comfortable hotel-like facility, rather remotely situated on a corner of the University of Maryland campus. It provided an ideal milieu for a conference of this sort, where the participants could devote their entire time to the work in hand, as they did, without the distractions which would have been present if the conference had been held in a large city hotel. The session opened on Wednesday evening with dinner and a “get-acquainted” social hour, extended throughout the day and evening on Thursday, and closed on Friday afternoon. Thursday forenoon was devoted to formal presentations designed to seek out and present the basic questions to be considered. Group discussions followed on Thursday afternoon and Friday forenoon. At the closing general sessions on Friday the moderators of the four groups summarized the conclusions of the groups and a general discussion period followed. Finally, summary talks were given by Walter D. Jacobs, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Government and Politics, University of Maryland, who had been brought in as an outside observer; Clark Warren, R. T., Past President of the ASRT; and Harold O. Peterson, M.D., Chairman of the ACR Committee on Technologist Affairs. The keynote address on Thursday was presented by Dr. Russell H. Morgan, Professor of Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University. Doctor Morgan, who has been Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Radiation (NACOR) since its inception in 1957, summarized some of the recent findings of the Committee (2) and posed a number of questions.

Conditioning Techniques

<b>OBJECTIVE</b>: To assess the predictive ability of various aspects of the work environment for organizational commitment. <b>METHODS</b>: A questionnaire measuring three dimensions of organizational commitment along with five aspects of work environment and 10 demographic and work setting characteristics was sent to a national, convenience sample of clinical laboratory professionals. <b>SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS</b>: All persons obtaining the CLS certification by NCA from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2006. Only respondents who worked full-time in a clinical laboratory setting were included in the database. <b>MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES</b>: Levels of affective, normative, and continuance organizational commitment, organizational support, role clarity, role conflict, transformational leadership behavior of supervisor, and organizational type, total years work experience in clinical laboratories, and educational level of respondents. Questionnaire items used either a 7-point or 5-point Likert response scale. <b>RESULTS</b>: Based on multiple regression analysis for the 427 respondents, organizational support and transformational leadership behavior were found to be significant positive predictors of affective and normative organizational commitment. Work setting (non-hospital laboratory) and total years of work experience in clinical laboratories were found to be significant positive predictors of continuance organizational commitment. Overall the organizational commitment levels for all three dimensions were at the neutral rating or below in the slightly disagree range. <b>CONCLUSIONS</b>: The results indicate a less than optimal level of organizational commitment to employers, which were predominantly hospitals, by CLS practitioners. This may result in continuing retention problems for hospital laboratories. The results offer strategies for improving organizational commitment via the significant predictors. <b>ABBREVIATIONS</b>: ASCP = American Society for Clinical Pathology; CLS= clinical laboratory scientist as certified by NCA; MT = medical technologist as certified by ASCP; NCA=National Credentialing Agency for Laboratory Personnel; RT(R) = registered radiologic technologist as certified by the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists.

American Registry of Radiologic Technologists

American Registry of Radiologic Technologists

American Registry of Radiologic Technologists

American Registry of Radiologic Technologists