The BRPT and ABSM have done battle before, and dueling press releases last week opened old wounds. It started with an American Board of Sleep Medicine (ABSM) missive touting the number of RPSGTs applying for new Registered Sleep Technologist (RST) certificates.
Specifically, the ABSM reported that 1,250 Registered Polysomnographic Technologists (RPSGTs) have so far applied for equivalency status to obtain certification from the ABSM as a Registered Sleep Technologist (RST). “The encouraging response from RPSGTs affirms the value of the ABSM’s new registry exam and RST credential, which will promote professional excellence and dedication to the highest standards of patient care,” said Nathaniel F. Watson, MD, president of the ABSM, via press release.
According to the ABSM press release, all practicing sleep technologists who have passed the Board of Registered Polysomnographic Technologists (BRPT) examination prior to Dec. 31, 2011, and are RPSGTs in good standing, are eligible to apply to the ABSM for RST equivalency status. ABSM officials say this process gives RPSGTs an opportunity to obtain the new RST certificate without taking the ABSM Sleep Technologist Registry Examination, which will be offered for the first time Nov 11, 2011.
The BRPT responded quickly with its own press release. “We read with interest the recent ABSM news release regarding the number of RPSGT credential holders opting to accept the offer of ABSM RST equivalency, for a fee of $25, without a requirement to sit for the RST exam,” wrote Janice East, RPSGT, R. EEG T, president of BRPT. “The RST exam has not been administered to a single sleep professional, therefore the only way for ABSM to issue the credential now is to allow technologists to pay for the ‘equivalency’ by using their RPSGT credential plus a fee.”
East wrote that she and BRPT officials “strongly disagree with ABSM President Dr. Nathaniel Watson’s statement that the number of RPSGTs who have opted into RST equivalency ‘affirms the value of the ABSM’s new registry exam and the RST credential.’ It is not possible to ‘affirm the value’ of a credential for which no exam has yet been given, reviewed for reliability and validity, and validated by an independent third party.”
East continued: No one needs the RST credential if you have earned the RPSGT credential. The RPSGT credential is positioned in all accreditation and licensing bodies. Those individuals currently described as holders of the RST credential are, in fact, holders of the RPSGT credential: a credential which Dr. Watson and other representatives of the AASM leadership have previously indicated is not an indicator of readiness to perform the primary duties of a polysomnographic technologist. This was offered as the reason ABSM created the RST credential in the first place. That assertion was made even as the RPSGT—a 32 year old, NCCA-accredited credential held by over 17,000 sleep technologists worldwide, is positioned as “equivalent” to the RST exam. How do the opposing statements for the RST creation and the one granting RPSGTs “equivalency” for $25 make sense?
For more information on the BRPT, visit www.brpt.org
To learn more about the ABSM, go to www.absm.org
Some say that that the situation the BRPT finds themselves is a strange state of affairs. I say it is not. the BRPT are having a hard time getting backing from their certificants because the BRPT shot themselves in the foot by unilaterally violating their terms of the verbal, implied contract they had with the lifetime certificants. Yes, this act, says to ALL certificants that the BRPT cannot be trusted to live up to their word. An organization, no matter the reason, cannot just unilaterally change the terms of an agreement that was GUARANTEED by past BRPT Presidents in publication and directly to the body of Lifetime Certificants. They shot themselves by hiring an inept management company, and allowing this company to rule their destiny for the sake of the creation of money from whatever source or vehicle they can undertake.
Multiple scenarios have been offered to the BRPT to satisfy this Lifetime issue, but they are totally stubborn about this issue, and will not budge one inch:
1) Allow the lifetimers to be recertified without having to pay. This will allow them to do what some consider best for the BRPT, and not feel so much as a violation of the original terms. The ones who get the RST obviously have obtained the requisite CEC.
2) Have the recertification monies paid by lifetimers to go into a fund to pay for the creation of new, further credentialing exams which is what we have been asking for a decade.
But since it has been shown by the BRPT that they cannot be trusted on Tuesday to live up to whatever word they say on Monday, I would be hard pressed to accept #2.
They are holding the low ground and are sticking to it. That is why they are also in this present position with the AASM/ABSM, here again, they find themselves occupying the low ground and are sticking to it.
To think that the AASM cannot create an exam after creating the curriculum for what the field accepts as the entry level training is ludicrous. Who provides the A-Step program?
Also, the ABSM has a massive history creating exams, as they created and administered the physician sleep board exams until this was taken over by the American Board of Internal Medicine and are now administered by Internal Medicine, which is good for the field.
You stick to your guns BRPT, I would expect nothing less from a non-elected board, who answers to no one except their management company. Gotta keep those fiefdoms rolling.
Even though I was granted the first publically available RST certificate (#101), I will continue to use the letters R P S G T after my name on February 1, 2012 , as THAT is what I agreed when I passed the exam back in 1990, and agreed to again in the early 2000′s when the BRPT asked to change the exam to a written, multiple choice exam, and then GUARANTEED that the lifetimers would NEVER have to recertify when they came out with recertification around 2006. THAT is what the certificate on my wall states by NOT having an expiration date.
LIFETIME
I would be sticking up for an organization that provided an ethical construct to their decisions. They claim to not even consider certificate holders to be members, and this, they claim, means that the certificate holders should not even get to see the by-laws of the organization. Who are the members? Who does this organization serve? How do the board members get placed on the board? Why are the certificants not voting members? Does not the functioning and possible unethical behavior of the organization not have a direct effect on our credential, ergo, we should have a say in how this organization is run?
DEMAND TRANSPARENCY OF THIS ORGANIZATION FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR CREDENTIAL. DEMAND A VOICE.