State Legislative Issues
APRN Supervision of Fluoro and Gonadal Shielding - 01/15/2020
The Oregon Health Authority Radiation Protection Services issued notification that they have officially filed final rules for advanced practice registered nurses (APRN) supervising fluoroscopic operations and to discontinue patient gonadal shielding. Changes in these rules became effective Dec. 13, 2019.
Due to the passage of Senate Bill 128, APRNs who has obtained an Oregon Board of Medical Imaging (OBMI) Limited Fluoroscopy Supervision Permit may provide personal supervision to radiologic technologists who have a permanent or temporary license issued from the OBMI to operate fluoroscopic.
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Division 106 amends OAR 333-106-0015 by repealing section (5) which currently requires the X-ray technique chart to indicate the need for gonadal shielding and OAR 333-106-003 is repealed in order to discontinue the requirement of providing gonad shielding to the patient during diagnostic X-ray procedures.
OBMI Meeting Notes - 10/19/2019
Find notes from the latest OBMI Board Meeting here
Highlights from the meeting include:
SB 128 Passed
Senate Bill 128, which would allow Advanced Practice Registered Nurses to supervise licensed radiologic technologists in the performance of fluoroscopy procedures, was passed in both the Senate and the House of Representatives and is headed to Gov. Kate Brown for her signature. A link to the version of the bill as approved by the House on May 9, 2019 is located at this link.
Highlights of the bill:
If you have any questions or are interested in serving on the OSRT legislative committee please email email@example.com.
SB 128 - Update
(February 21, 2019)
On Monday, February 18, SB 128 was introduced by the Senate Committee on Healthcare for the 2019 legislative session. The OSRT was represented at that hearing and a couple of members testified regarding this matter. Nurses were also present at the hearing and provided their opinions of this bill, which included requesting that they not have to take a competency exam. Details from the hearing, including video and written testimony can be found here.
At this time OBMI will continue to work on rule making which will follow this proposed bill pretty closely and will ensure the Advanced Practice Registered Nurses will need to meet additional education and clinical requirements in order to supervise fluoroscopy.
OSRT will continue to stay informed on the progress of this bill and notify our members when new details emerge.
Public hearing set for SB 128
(February 12, 2019)
This bill is scheduled for a public hearing and possible work session by the Senate Committee on Healthcare at the Capitol this coming Monday, February 18th at 1:00pm in HR A. The session is open to the public and you are encouraged to attend. Representatives from OSRT will be present for the hearing and we welcome other technologists who are willing and able to join us.
Senate Bill 128 would allow Advanced Nurse Practitioners to supervise Fluoroscopy
(January 26, 2019)
The OSRT legislative committee was recently notified of proposed Senate Bill 128. Linked here is a draft of the bill for your review. The bill would allow Advanced Nurse Practitioners to supervise fluoroscopy if they've met standards set by OBMI. These standards include an education component, a clinical component and requires them to pass an ARRT exam. This bill would not allow them to operate fluoroscopy, but rather supervise/direct technologists.
As you aware, this has been an ongoing issue for the past few years and the proposal has certainly come a long way. The original proposal by the Oregon Nurses Association (ONA) requested the ability for Advanced Nurse Practitioners to order, perform and interpret all imaging studies. Through working with the Oregon Board of Medical Imaging and Radiation Protection Services, the newest proposal (SB128) would ensure that those Advanced Nurse Practitioners supervising fluoroscopy would have to complete specialized education and prove competency.
The OSRT legislative committee is watching the proposal closely and plans on having a representative attend any meeting where the Senate healthcare committee will be discussing this proposal. It is extremely important to have technologists in the room during these discussions to ensure our voices and concerns are heard. We will also watch for any amendments to the proposal. You can continue to check the website for updates.
Upcoming agenda item at OBMI board meeting regarding APRNs supervising flouroscopy
(October 15, 2018)
The OSRT legislative committee would like to inform all OSRT members that the Oregon Board of Medical Imaging will be discussing a "Review of legislative draft for APRNs to be authorized to supervise fluoroscopy procedures ." At this time public comment is not open on the proposal, but OSRT welcomes your opinions on the issue.
To share your thoughts on the issue, please email firstname.lastname@example.org
Update on the ONA proposal to allow nurses access to fluoroscopy
(May 2, 2018)
The request from the Oregon Nursing Association to allow Advanced Nurse Practitioners to supervise fluoroscopy was discussed again at the OBMI meeting on 4/20. The board did not want to move forward with allowing the ARPNs the ability to supervise fluoroscopy by changing statutes. They recommended that a representative from the board should meet with the leaders or the Healthcare Committee from the Senate. The board felt it would be important to meet with Senators Greenlick and Monnes-Anderson to explain OBMI's perspective on the issue. A few of the board members mentioned there was never a needs assessment done to confirm there is a true need to have the nurses operate and/or supervise fluoroscopy and it was not a good idea to change statute to accommodate a few requests.
We will continue to keep you posted as this discussion continues. Please check our website frequently or contact our legislative committee to find out how you can be involved.
OBMI Board Meeting Notes - April 22, 2017
1. Proposed rule to establish civil penalty schedule for employing an unlicensed person to perform imaging.
2. Five year review of specified administrative rules, in accordance with ORS 183.405.
This was just a procedural item as they must review their administrative rules every 5 years. No discussion to note.
3. Proposed policy for handling public records requests
1. CT waiver request – follow-up question following the Board’s January action on CT waivers.
2. Board action regarding possible rulemaking regarding supervision of temporary limited permit holders
3. APRNs providing verbal instructions during fluoroscopy procedure—update on SB 801.
The June 2016 issue of the Oregon Board of Medical Imaging newsletter is available now on the OBMI website. Articles include:
OBMI meeting held April 22, 2016
1. A privately owned orthopedic clinic out of Eugene made a request for an exemption to the CT credentialing requirement for R.T.s who operate low-dose CT equipment. Their facility has been researching a low-dose, weight bearing CT scanner for feet and ankles only. Due to the low radiation dose and the limited number of studies they would likely order, at least initially, the physicians in their group wondered if they could allow an RT to do the scanning at that machine in lieu of a credentialed CT technologist.
2. Following a random inspection of limited licensing educational facilities; the question arose if the students in these programs are being appropriately supervised during the clinical portion of their training. It was brought to the attention of the board that a number of years ago the state law was changed to indicate that students of limited licensed programs must apply for and pass the ARRT certification exam and then obtain a temporary permit from the OBMI before being allowed to enter the clinical part if their training. See OR Statue 337-010-0030
3. There was a suggestion during the public comment session to request that OBMI remove the need for applicants to disclose that they have had an arrest. Currently the board requires applicants to disclose arrest, convictions, warrants, etc. The person requesting this change felt that if an applicant wasn’t actually convicted of a charge then they shouldn't have to disclose the related arrest. However, from the board’s perspective applicants are being asked to honestly disclose all the information and as long as the background check lines up with what has been provided there is no further action taken by the board. This is more of an issue about integrity and disclosing the whole truth.