|Wednesday, April 01, 2015 12:00 AM|
ARRT is Looking for Suggestions and Comments on Proposed Changes to CE Requirements and Standards of Ethics
The American Registry of Radiologic Technologists Board of Trustees annually reviews the organization’s policies as contained in its governing documents. They want to hear from you on proposed changes to two of ARRT’s governing documents, the Standards of Ethics and Continuing Education Requirements. Both documents affect the profession at large and you personally. So take advantage of this opportunity to respond to the call for comments by May 29, 2015.
The following paragraphs summarize the proposed changes. Links to the documents themselves, detailing the proposed changes, can be found at the end of this article, along with a link to an online survey to weigh in with your opinions, ideas and solutions. The Board will consider all comments at its July meeting. Any resulting changes will be announced online and in publications. The revised governing documents will become effective September 1, 2015.
Proposed changes to Standards of Ethics
ARRT’s Standards of Ethics includes an enforceable list of rules for Registered Technologists, and changes are proposed to two of those 22 rules, as well as one of its administrative procedures.
Rule 2 is the most detailed of the ARRT Rules of Ethics, addressing the subversion of ARRT exams and assessments. And it’s about to get even more detailed to make it more comprehensive and easy-to-understand.
Rule 2 has already detailed how disclosing information on ARRT exam questions or answers constitutes exam subversion. But, as the old saying goes, “It takes two to tango.” Not only is the discloser of such information engaging in exam subversion; so, too, is the one seeking the information! Adding “soliciting” to Rule 2(ii) specifies that both parties in such a negotiation are in violation of the rule.
Part (vi) of Rule 2 contained two distinct examples of exam subversion: removing exam-related materials from a testing room and having unauthorized information about an ARRT exam or assessment. While not changing the meaning or extent of Rule 2 (vi), the Board decided to reorganize it into two separate parts to give each the proper attention.
One last rule change is proposed for Rule 3, which describes the possible convictions, criminal proceedings or military court-martials that constitute a violation. The Board proposes adding “Alford plea” to the list of those outcomes. While not common, Alford pleas are guilty pleas that contain protestations of innocence, and – as such – they meet the criteria for violation of Rule 3.
The Standards of Ethics also detail several administrative procedures, and the Board is proposing a change to #5. Two years ago, the Board adopted new language linking “certification” and “registration” into one unified term. One operational impact of that terminology change involved sanction removal requests. Proposed changes to Administrative Procedure #5 would clarify that removal of a sanction is a pre-requisite to applying for certification and registration. Of course, individuals pursuing certification and registration are always subject to the policies and procedures in place at the time as they pertain to the individual’s particular set of circumstances.
Proposed changes to Continuing Education Requirements
The ARRT Board is considering several changes to the CE requirements – three of which will expand options for R.T.s to earn Category A credits.
Additional proposed changes include:
Click below to view the proposed changes and contribute your thoughts. Be sure the ARRT Board has the opportunity to hear you by submitting your comments by May 29.
Review the proposed changes within the full documents:
Read the full article here: http://arrtupdate.arrt.org/rt-current-issue/arrt-board-seeks-your-opinions-ideas-solutions/