Why Should States License Respiratory Care?

This reply is for mill. Just look at the states of North Carolina, Ohio and California where they are mandating the Credential of RRT to become newly licensed in these states. People complain there is no difference between some CRT'S and RRT'S, and most are CRT'S . . So take the test. If you want to be in demand, go online and get your baccalaureate degree, takes only a few years for the added credits to your associates.

If you want to be professional you have to be professional.

As a recent graduate, this is very disturbing to me, as I hold what we do in very high regard. And not to hijack this thread, but does anyone know of openings at their facility? I graduated top of my class, hold a Bachelor of Arts degree, and have seven months experience in ICU as a paid extern. That job ended without a permanent position due to layoffs. It is tough out here and I could use some contacts to get going in the field again. email lumina66@gmail.com

When I entered RT (1967) it was a part of CS.  I entered and Grad one of the first AA program in 1974 (took longer because of the draft and Vietnam).  I have worked in NICU exclusively since 1972.  We did many things then that we would not do now.  There is always a leaning curve, for those that first travel.

It was about this time that many RTs were just looked at as "Tank Jockeys" or "Hippies".  So when licensing started here in 1983, it was more an attempt to, "clean up the RTs".  Hence we were accountable for many of our actions, of which we were already accountable.  The States were out to delete those that had bad habits, i.e. DUI., or didn't like the way we dressed.

But of course it was only 6 years ago, that Ca noted that a few RN's were in Jail for various crimes.  Enforcement is always selective.  That is the reason we have inequalities in America.

Licensing created a level playing field, RT vs CRT was no longer a Separating point of haves vs haves not.  I believe the weakest link in our field has been the lack of unification and lack of support for those almost us. Regardless, in the end we are still employee's vs employer, at will.  

Before I reply to the question "What does the Licensure board do for the RT profession"?. I would like to how many of us RT know the purpose of the licensure  board ?. I agree with Carl Rod - a lot of disciplining takes place behind the scenes. Very few are aware about this, and most of the complaints are generated by either the hospital or the local law enforcement in extreme circumstances - where it has caused pt harm,DUI, etc. But errors and negligence by the bad apples in  our profession are committed every day ( Pt not suctioned by certain RT or falsification of vent/med record, i can go on and on...Are they reported? - NO. Because we RT ourself dont consider these to be serious enough and like everything else depend on others to fix the problem for us, including promoting and advocating for the profession. If the state RT board have flaws then it should be addressed rather than disband the board. Or individuals who think they can make a difference should step up. If we dont care for our profession no one will - and the primary cause, is the lack of awareness and ignorance. I also strongly beleive that RT schools should incorporate a brief lecture on the origin of RT and the local state licensure laws and board and so forth, so the students have a true perception of the evolution of our field. I should stop now.

The issue of licensing is neither simple or straightforward.  Yes it makes the cost of practice more expensive for the care giver.  Yes there is little reciprocity between states and acts due to localized politics.  That said, let's look at the reality.

I have served on a licensing board for several years.  As one of the old OJTs, I was surprised to find the lack of willingness among RTs to expand their knowledge base or add to their skills.  But the biggest lessons I learned from the experience was the few bad apples who try every means they can to stay in practice when they have been found to be abusive, incompetent or impaired.  The one thing that state licensing has done is to provide a means to either rehabilitate or remove these few practitioners who damage the reputation of the rest of us and, above all, remove the potential of harm to our served patients.

Most of this goes on "behind the scenes" and unless one looks at the national data bases and individual state board reports, most practitioners never really see the result of having this necessary "evil" of lcensing.

Jim makes some very good points.  The license act that was passed in Ohio is a shadow of the original intent.  There was a lot of give and take and territory protaction from existing boards that caused the original document to be watered down.  Having said that, I know our Board works very hard to maintain the integrity of the the profession and to protect the citizens of Ohio.  As far as raising costs go, I am not aware of any study that would support that theory.  Because the scopes of practice vary significantly between states reciprosity may not be an option.  The current licensure process has many flaws but I think we should work to improve the system rather than do away with it.  The goal in every State was to protect the public and to define the profession.  Thanks Jim, for raising the issue.  

Licensure was the ultimate equalizer though: finally a CRTT/CRT had the 'right' to do the same job as a theoretical Ph.D in respiratory care because you only needed the license to practice.

If any state had had the guts to make the RRT the credential needed to practice, then something may have been achieved.

Even better if a state had said a Bachelors degree was the entry level needed; but our national organization(s) have ALWAYS been about making the lowest credentialed feel like they're as good as the highest.