Proposed By-law No. 60

All sounds good .

Thanks for all of the hard work. I think it is a great idea to regulate diagnostic medical sonographers under the CMRTO. Looking forward to working as a member and future opportunities ahead. 

It seems that for a decades diploma,  ARDMS licence and as a result, an experience were enough to work with no harm to patients. And now all of this is not legal anymore? Are you serious? You are forcing hardworking taxpayers to take more money from their families to pay you with no benefits to patients. Protest!

It it harsh to have all these rules implemented and no benefits. it is not encouraging for students who want to go into sonography to have so many obstacles in order to be able to work in the field. The fee is very high way high and why is all of this necessary? why no refund but if not paid on time the grace period not long and to get penalized on top of it what if people are going through difficult situations or working part time? Someone needs to get our back not discourage people to go into sonography. Very dissapointed this will bring on a shortage of sonographers most likely.

I agree with the changes, and also with prior comments regarding refunds for retiring members or those who will be transferring to a different province. Perhaps there could be a provision for refunds under these circumstances or since a member who will transfer to a different province will also have to register in the new province then an agreement to pass the credit on to the other provincial body?

I find it very interesting that Independent Health Facilities operating in Ontario are licensed by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care,  which means that the facility and those that work within undergo a full licensing assessment. by the CPSO. The assessment includes a site visit to review and  actually witness the Technologists/Sonographers proficiency.  Perhaps a more thorough approach by the CMRT in this regard would seem less like a "money grab" scenario.

Hi,

Very high fees compared with other organizations and in rapport with our incomes.

Please changed the fee, is too  much for a sonographer compared with our income.

The fees are too high, we can not afford it , there are the most expensive from all other licenses

Webinar was helpful.  Good to have a grace period to pay for fees. But can you justify why the fees are so high? You don't include PLI or CME.  Sonography Canada and ARDMS fees are reasonable and fair , and we get PLI through Sonography Canada.

Member fee is very high. At least free CME credit courses should be provided constantly for the members. 

The member fee is toooooo high for sonographers in Ontario. We still need to pay ARDMS, insurance, CMEs!!!!! Unacceptable!!!

It is not acceptable high member fee for sonographers, whose rate is average 25 - 30 CAD per hour. We pay ARDMS 75$ and Sonography Canada 284 CAD ( includs PLI and free CME). Why CMRTO wants grab our money ( 630$ ! ) without any benefit ?! Without PLI, without free CME. In this case price for member should be comparable with ARDMS price 75 $, not more !

I am agree with high fees , No CME , NO insurance is not aa good idea  . We will really appreciate if we are paying fees and getting insurance  and CME 

Thanks 

high fees . We will really appreciate If we are paying and getting CME  and Insurance 

Totally agree with the last comment on September 4th. Regarding the remark that:"The assessment includes a site visit to review and actually witness the Technologists/Sonographers proficiency." , from my experience, only the best sonographer of the clinic may be watched scanning, but lately, not even that happening.

We are also facing more demands in terms of measurements and views shown ( for ex. for the heart views, many clinics in the past would only ask for 4 chambers view and now, as part of the protocol we have to provide on top of 4 chambers view, left ventricular outflow tract, right ventricular outflow tract, 3 vessels and aortic arch views, between many other additions) in parallel with a major decrease in scanning time ( for a pelvic + intracavitary from 40 mins to 20 mins, for an abdominal ultrasound from 30 mins to 15- 20 mins,, for a biophysical profile from 45 mins to 30 mins, etc. - totally unacceptable, not mentioning the fact that too many times the patients are so late for the appointment that the scanning time is shrinking significantly, until becoming non-existent. More measurements, less time = quantity and not quality and means no breaks and lunch for sonographers, which results in increased morbidity.

When the assessment is done, please look at the scanning time scheduled for different tests and if there is a functional sink in the scanning room to properly clean up the intracavitary probe.

Perhaps a more thorough approach by the CMRTO in this regard would seem more significant towards patient protection and interest.

Also ergonomic conditions for sonographers will improve the quality of care.( adjustable beds, 2 breaks and 1 lunch for an 8 hours shift, ergonomic chairs,  at least 3 x 2 m room with a window and a functional sink, etc).

Regards

Regarding 

CONSOLIDATION OF BY-LAW NO. 13 March 27, 2018

In the composition of the executive, registration, inquiries-complaints and reports, discipline, fitness to practice, quality assurance, patient relations committees, in all these committees there is no specification regarding the number of qualified sonographers who are part of each of these committees. It is listed as 1 or up to 4 Councillors who are members of the College, but these individuals may not hold a specialty in sonography. On what basis are they qualified to assess any sonographer? Please explain.

All these committees should have in their composition more than 1 highly experienced sonographer in order to understand and resolve the complexity of an ultrasound assessment and to ensure the objectivity of this act, through a comprehensive understanding and knowledge of the limits of an ultrasound examination alone.

Please explain why ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS shows as intentionally deleted, and what is the significance of that?

CMRTO is concerned with the quality of patient care, however there are no guidelines in place for IHFs to establish a standard scanning time per type of assessment, room size, functional sink in the scanning room ( for proper intracavitary probe cleaning), adjustable beds.

The work conditions and the well being of the sonographer are directly linked to the quality of patient care. If proper work conditions are not provided, including scanning time, the quality of work cannot be assured.

CMRTO please make sure that the expertise of the assessor is higher or at least equal to the expertise of the assessed professional, where a peer to peer or committee assessment is involved, in order to avoid errors, misunderstandings and wrongful conviction of a CMRTO member.

Full name and workplace(s) made public not a good idea for the following reasons:

- a former employer/s, radiologist/s, physician/s or colleague/s may seek revenge and provide negative, unfounded feedback about someone

- a very good, experienced MRT who's studies are highly reliable and ends up being chased and overloaded by patients and/or referring physicians,seeking reliable information and results.

- different companies for which one works part-time can exploit the information in multiple ways and create difficult situations for the MRT, 

- other reasons that didn't yet crossed my mind

Keep up the good work!

Thank you for the consultation opportunity.

I have to say the annual fee is too expensive for  us. Do we have any" right" to say "no"? 

Sonographer