Talk:Polysomnographic technologist

This

This page needs a lot of work. Firstly, the distinction between a technician and a technologist should be made (at least according to the BRPT). The little things we have to memorize in our training (amount of time required for events to be scored, etc.) should not be added in so randomly, but placed in sections of their own right, after a general introduction is made. Currently, the article is too short to put so much emphasis on different apneas/hypopnea and these should be kept in their own article(s) until this one can be fleshed out enough to have a section on apneas and hypopnea. Simply stating what these terms (obstructive, mixed, central, etc.) are in one or two sentences isn't very informative and is simply parroting what we learn in training. Causes and physiological details should be added in more depth. Details on PAP treatment should be added. Examples of events with screencaps of the PSG would be nice. Other disorders, seizures in sleep, etc., etc.... A lot of work needs to be done. I'm willing to do this in my free time, but some help would be nice, particularly with references and the HTML, which I suck at. Any other Wikipedian techs out there?

-67.80.69.170 (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Already made some minor changes, adding links to other articles and will link back to this article as well. Added a reference to the BRPT's website which contains the language used in the quote and will perhaps try to format the quote. I totally agree that this needs work and will try to get some of it done. First, as suggested, I'd like to distinguish between a "Polysomnographic Technologist" and "Registered Polysomnographic Technologist." Also, it should be noted that the RPSGT credential is administered and recognized in other countries. Along with that goes adding more information about sleep education and associations: AASM, AAST, CAAHEP, BRPT, etc. AskMrGray (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)MrGray

Note, I added some and reworded alot purely for the sake of ease of read. Does public joe really need alot on indepth material on the PSG?--PSGer (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

When I attempted to look up "RPSGT" or "Registered Polysomnograhy Technologist" I found this article, which I think should have parts broken into separate articles, as some of the topics mentioned here are separate topics in their own rights.Bill Pollard (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Academy of Sleep Medicine - Registered Sleep Technologist?

In November 2011 the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) plans to implement still another credential for the polysomnographic technologists. The new credential will be the Registered Sleep Technologist (RST). As happened when the NBRC introduced the SDS credential, this announcement by the AASM has caused more conflict amongst the organizations in the sleep field. The AASM wanted the new credential, because it said too many applicants were failing to pass the RPSGT examination.

I could find nowhere on the website or even google where this was discussed or is planned. Je.rrt (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

To Je.rrt - thanks for putting my original paragraph concerning the RST credential here. I think it should be discussed. I had put it back into this article after it was deleted and it was deleted again, with a comment about Wikipedia not being a crystal ball or advertising medium. First, let me address your comment. Actually, there is plenty of material concerning the RST credential by the AASM and in other websites, including the AAST's and the BRPT's. Just type "aasm rst" in the Google or Yahoo search line. You will find enough material to gather at least six sources to document what I said. Maybe I should have listed these as references. This discussion proves there has been controversy and it explains what it is. In fact, on the first frame of the AASM website is info about the RST examination and the timeline being followed for its implementation.

Concerning the comment about the crystal ball and advertising: Wikipedia is to present info in an unbiased manner on a variety of encyclopedic topics. The RST credential is coming. The AASM has put everything into place to start testing for RSTs and to grant the credential to those with RPSGT credentials, providing they meet the criteria set forth by the AASM. As to the bit about advertising - that baffles me. I am not a member of the AASM and if the truth be known I have reservations about creating yet another technologist credential. However, if we have an article about polysomnography technologists, it is very appropriate to include info about the RST credential.Bill Pollard (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't me that removed it and I think the 'crystal ball' comment (which I have actually posted a request for rationale on that persons talk page) was in reference to the 'it will exist in 2012 because people were failing' without a source or press release saying 'we are doing this because people are not getting credentialed for X reason' Je.rrt (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Technologist vs Technician

I cannot move the page back to Technologist, but the highest level of credentialing is technologist with technician being either the old term, or a term for the assistant. all of this can be explained under technologist instead of two articles or swapping back and fourth. Je.rrt (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Although we have very limited input, only one participant has advanced an argument for retaining the current title, and I find the argument that the industry itself, and its professional body, use the term "technologist" as opposed to "technician" compelling. Given that, and the majority of participants favouring such a move, the result is move to "technologist". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Polysomnographic technician → Polysomnographic technologist – someone moved the page without discussion to the old title for the profession, in the future a section on the difference between technician and technologist should be implemented, but a swap to the old name, or even a separate article is not necessary. Je.rrt (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter I thought the only difference was country (technician more common in the US, technologist more common in Canada) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

technician is an old term in the field entirely, since the same board regulates credentialing internationally it should be the same term in both countries. Technologist is the current accepted title and the article should reflect that. I don't know how to move it so I cant :P Je.rrt (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I've notified the editor who previously moved the page, just about a week ago, about this discussion, because there might be some reason he had that we don't know about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

He moved it because I copy+paste moved it and he moved it back to preserve the history appropriately. I cannot move it the right way without deleting the receiving article, which i dont think i can do; so I did it this way so an admin could handle business the right way. Je.rrt (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep on polysomnographic technician. Technologist is an ugly word and much less widely used than technician. Even if the US professional association insists on "technologist" there is no need for Wikipedia to slavishly follow. Similarly, I question whether the claimed difference between the two titles (allegedly the technologist supervises the technician) is universally recognised and in any case it is far better described within one article rather than having two articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Do not keep are you serious? wikipedia should not use the term used by the industry?

• Board of Registered Polysomnographic Technologists (BRPT) - www.brpt.org/
• Commission for Accreditation of Allied Health Health Programs - http://www.caahep.org/Content.aspx?ID=48
• Southeast/Southwest Regional Association of Polysomnographic Technologists. - www.sesw.org/

even the American Medical Association (AMA) refers to the role as "Technologist", the American Academy of Sleep Medicine includes in one of their outlines for the role of a technologist as "including the duties of a polysomnographic technician"

Je.rrt (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the term technologist should be used. I hold a credential called "registered polysomnographic technologist." The BRPT and the AAST use technologist in their names.Bill Pollard (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

technologist vs technicnologist

type-o? Je.rrt (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a typo? No one has ever referred to the term as anything but technician or technologist. It would have been better to keep the term technician than come up with a term that does not exist.Bill Pollard (talk)

I am sure it is a type-o :P Je.rrt (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was a typo. It's really not necessary to use the full RM procedure to fix a typo. If you're going to request a move, however, it's a great idea to follow the instrctions at WP:RM, and use the right template. The poor bot couldn't even list the discussion properly at RM, because someone just added {{move}} to this page, instead of {{subst:Requested move|NewTitle}}.

It's fixed now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It is incredibly inconvinient to be required to spend more than 10 minutes trying to find the appropriate template for such an issue. Hence the obvious use of the one used to get it moved in the first place. an intuitive list of templates and their use would be good. Keyword being intuitive, the current setup makes finding templates incredibly difficult Je.rrt (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I usually just go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and copy/paste from the section where it tells you how to request a move. Once you're on that page, I think it's pretty clear; am I wrong? It takes me about half a minute to do it, and I don't do it often enough to have it memorized. I don't know what search method would take you more than 3 minutes, much less 10.

The idea of a single page where you could pick up template codes for all the procedures sounds like a great idea, though. I'll see what I can do about setting one up; then I'll let you know where it is. Thanks for the suggestion, and sorry for the inconvenience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There's WP:TEMPLATES, where you can find exactly the one you want. What would make that more intuitive? It's the very first thing I thought to type, checking to see whether it existed yet, or if I needed to create it. I reckon that page could be improved; I'm looking more carefully at it now. Ten minutes, huh? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

that is actually pretty intuitive. thanks! Is there a main article listing all of the intuitive template listings that might help in the future? Je.rrt (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be the main one. I'm sure any templates or classes of templates missing from it would be welcome additions, though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Proper Noun Capitalizations

Don't forget to capitalize the title "Poly..Tech.." PSGer (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Undone. No reason to capitalize that title any more than we capitalize doctor, teacher, professor etc. in ordinary running text. Those words are capitalized in the titles of organizations as long as the organizations themselves use capitalization in their titles. --Hordaland (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)