BOX 1. Continued
Rationale for Recommendation
Expansion of the job family to three grades is fully supportable, based on internal and external market
comparisons. Minimum qualifications and expectations/functions are supportable as recommended.
HR recommends combining the existing job description of medical imaging lead and the new rad tech
III level into one combined job description. Grade 17 is recommended for a closed III level of a limited
number of incumbents serving either as a lead or expert III rad tech. For the III level, HR recommends a
minimum of 3 years as a radiology technician, in addition to the other requirements ( TDH-MRT, ARRT,
multi-modality in three or more disciplines, with a minimum of 25% in secondary modalities, and expert
practices/leadership experience preferred.)
Rad tech III/lead non-exempt incumbents report to a supervisor, manager, or director, as organizationally appropriate.
Job Title: Radiologic technician III/lead
Job Code: 289 (existing job code for medical imaging lead)
SHC Pay Grade: 17
Director Network Imaging Operations Date
VP Diagnostics and Therapeutics Date
President/ CEO Date
TDH-MRT: Texas Department of Health—Medical Radiologic Technologist
Source: Seton Family of Hospitals, Austin, TX. Used with permission.
Although there was widespread acceptance
by both technologists and management to
the initial technologist ladder implementation, Seton soon discovered issues that limited the ladder’s effectiveness.
First, technologists quickly figured out
the minimum amount of procedures
needed to move up the ladder to level II
and to stay there. Even with some non-technical requirements for advancement
on the ladder, these requirements were
easy enough to accomplish or did not have
enough weight to truly influence if a technologist was eligible for ladder promotion.
Second, there was an increasing drive
for staff to take a more active role in non-
technical issues such as patient safety, cost
containment, and customer satisfaction.
With new indicators to measure hospital
performance, such as pay and net provider
scores, it became apparent that procedures
alone would not elevate the performance of
the imaging department to the internal and
external requirements necessary to become
a center of excellence and to provide the
quality of services that patients expected.
With new indicators to measure hospital performance, such as
pay and net provider scores, it became apparent that proce-
dures alone would not elevate the performance of the imaging
department to the internal and external requirements
necessary to become a center of excellence.