California Fluoroscopy Permit

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

captaincrunch

Junior Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
148
Reaction score
132
Hi all, I'm not a frequent poster, but I thought I would start a thread about the California Fluoroscopy exam. This might be relevant to other fields that use fluoro, but I'll post to Cardiology since that is my field. There is a separate radiography exam, which most people (at least in cardiology) won't need. Ask your employer which exams you need before you sign up.

Obtaining the license is a pain and took longer than I anticipated. If you're planning on taking a job in California that requires it, get started early! In order to apply you need a California medical license, which is a chore by itself. You need to send a form via mail (no electronic applications) to the California Department of Public Health, which takes about 6 weeks to review your application. You will be notified via mail with instructions on how to register for the exam. You will pay the ARRT online, which now administers the exam on behalf of the state. They will then send you a testing permit via mail (this takes about 2 weeks) to schedule the exam with Pearson. Once you have scheduled and taken the exam, the state will report back to you in 45 days. So, as you can see, the process is quite slow. Getting any response from the Department of Public Health is a fool's errand.

The exam itself is actually pretty reasonable, in my opinion. Apparently, the ARRT took over the exam a few years ago, so information on the old exam may be out-of-date. So be wary of any old questions you see floating around the internet. For obvious reasons, I can't disclose test questions or specific topics, but I think I can provide some general guidance on how to prepare. In general, the exam emphasizes radiation safety more than anything else, so make sure you know all aspects of radiation safety. Everything from occupational limits, radiation protection, and physics is fair game. They especially want to know about what the operator can do to limit risk, so know how your settings at the table can affect radiation dose. They also devote a significant number of questions to the technical aspects of fluoroscopy, so you'll have to know the basics about how the device works, including the x-ray generator, the image intensifier and the flat panel detector. Radiation units are also fair game, and you can pick up some easy points by knowing these. There are other topics, which are covered in the blueprint (e.g., regulations, information technology, consent/ethics, etc).

I think most questions were pretty fair, without too many esoteric questions. Most are single-best answer questions, but they do have some other formats, so be prepared for that. They try to ask questions with a single correct answer, where the other options are unambiguously wrong. Question stems are short enough that most people won't have to worry about the time limit. There are also experimental questions, so don't let tricky questions throw you. I believe 90 of the questions are scored and 30 are experimental. I don't think I disclosed anything protected here. This information just confirms what is available on the exam blueprint.

So, how to review? Most people use the ASRT modules and practice questions. In general, I thought the quality of these was poor. They often focused on unnecessary details about history and legislation. The authors showed a poor understanding of the technical aspects of fluoroscopy, so I found it impossible to learn about certain topics (like how a flat panel detector works) from them. They also devote separate chapters to portable vs fixed fluoroscopy units, which is a strange decision. The longest chapter was devoted to radiation to the eye (sigh). The readings are very dry. The questions are marginally better, but often focus on unnecessary granular detail. They also don't provide any feedback on the option choices, so it's hard to learn from them.

The old manual written by the state of California is still out there on the internet. It's actually pretty good, though also very dry. When you take away the appendices and index, it isn't terribly long and provides a lot of useful information. Just be aware that certain things may be out of date. The old manual also focuses on image intensifiers, while for the exam you also need to be familiar with flat-panel detectors. As a result, you can ignore some information on out-of-date equipment. Just be aware that both image intensifiers and flat panels are covered by the exam.

I think online practice questions, such as FluoroPrep can be helpful and you can pick up some easy points by doing them. Some of their questions are inaccurate, so be aware. They will ask about the same topic multiple times in an effort to force you to remember. I think this can be a useful way to shore up weaknesses.

How much time to devote will depend on your study habits, but I thought this was easier than most of the exams I have taken so far. It was certainly easier than the various USMLE steps, ABIM exams, and Echocardiology exam. It was perhaps comparable to the Nuclear Cardiology exam for those of you who have taken it. Still, the exam should be taken seriously. Smart people have failed, and nobody wants to delay the start of their career because they bombed the fluoro exam. I would review the ASRT modules/questions, read over the old California manual (it goes pretty quickly), and then practice with the Fluoroprep questions.

I hope that helps. Again, I did my best to be helpful without crossing any legal/ethical lines. Good luck.

Members don't see this ad.
 
do you have a link to the old written manual by the state of california?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I was reading through the ASRT modules, but not well written and full of details it seems in every line almost. They are definitely completely new terms for me. For those who have taken the Fluoroscopy permit exam and used these ASRT modules, do you need to know every detail in these module articles? or should we follow what their module questions focus on? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
 
The fluoro exam is not that hard, as I recall. Unless it has changed in the past couple of years it is a multiple guess exam, and as long as you study from their study guide (which is hard to find on the California Dept. of Public Health web site), you are unlikely to fail the exam. It is mainly testing the principles of how to reduce radiation exposure to yourself and the patient. You can "cram" for a day or two and pass easily if you are a decent test taker. Don't try to take it without studying, though.
 
The fluoro exam is not that hard, as I recall. Unless it has changed in the past couple of years it is a multiple guess exam, and as long as you study from their study guide (which is hard to find on the California Dept. of Public Health web site), you are unlikely to fail the exam. It is mainly testing the principles of how to reduce radiation exposure to yourself and the patient. You can "cram" for a day or two and pass easily if you are a decent test taker. Don't try to take it without studying, though.
 
I have done the test recently and agree that the questions seem different from the fluoroprep questions and not sure that the old manual is sufficient,

My question is that the RHB website suggests you can see your license information online prior to the 4-6 weeks needed to deliver the actual license to you. And that the online print can be used temporarily.



How soon did you get your result updated online? Is there a way to track the result earlier than 4-6 weeks? If you don’t pass what are the next steps?






Hi all, I'm not a frequent poster, but I thought I would start a thread about the California Fluoroscopy exam. This might be relevant to other fields that use fluoro, but I'll post to Cardiology since that is my field. There is a separate radiography exam, which most people (at least in cardiology) won't need. Ask your employer which exams you need before you sign up.

Obtaining the license is a pain and took longer than I anticipated. If you're planning on taking a job in California that requires it, get started early! In order to apply you need a California medical license, which is a chore by itself. You need to send a form via mail (no electronic applications) to the California Department of Public Health, which takes about 6 weeks to review your application. You will be notified via mail with instructions on how to register for the exam. You will pay the ARRT online, which now administers the exam on behalf of the state. They will then send you a testing permit via mail (this takes about 2 weeks) to schedule the exam with Pearson. Once you have scheduled and taken the exam, the state will report back to you in 45 days. So, as you can see, the process is quite slow. Getting any response from the Department of Public Health is a fool's errand.

The exam itself is actually pretty reasonable, in my opinion. Apparently, the ARRT took over the exam a few years ago, so information on the old exam may be out-of-date. So be wary of any old questions you see floating around the internet. For obvious reasons, I can't disclose test questions or specific topics, but I think I can provide some general guidance on how to prepare. In general, the exam emphasizes radiation safety more than anything else, so make sure you know all aspects of radiation safety. Everything from occupational limits, radiation protection, and physics is fair game. They especially want to know about what the operator can do to limit risk, so know how your settings at the table can affect radiation dose. They also devote a significant number of questions to the technical aspects of fluoroscopy, so you'll have to know the basics about how the device works, including the x-ray generator, the image intensifier and the flat panel detector. Radiation units are also fair game, and you can pick up some easy points by knowing these. There are other topics, which are covered in the blueprint (e.g., regulations, information technology, consent/ethics, etc).

I think most questions were pretty fair, without too many esoteric questions. Most are single-best answer questions, but they do have some other formats, so be prepared for that. They try to ask questions with a single correct answer, where the other options are unambiguously wrong. Question stems are short enough that most people won't have to worry about the time limit. There are also experimental questions, so don't let tricky questions throw you. I believe 90 of the questions are scored and 30 are experimental. I don't think I disclosed anything protected here. This information just confirms what is available on the exam blueprint.

So, how to review? Most people use the ASRT modules and practice questions. In general, I thought the quality of these was poor. They often focused on unnecessary details about history and legislation. The authors showed a poor understanding of the technical aspects of fluoroscopy, so I found it impossible to learn about certain topics (like how a flat panel detector works) from them. They also devote separate chapters to portable vs fixed fluoroscopy units, which is a strange decision. The longest chapter was devoted to radiation to the eye (sigh). The readings are very dry. The questions are marginally better, but often focus on unnecessary granular detail. They also don't provide any feedback on the option choices, so it's hard to learn from them.

The old manual written by the state of California is still out there on the internet. It's actually pretty good, though also very dry. When you take away the appendices and index, it isn't terribly long and provides a lot of useful information. Just be aware that certain things may be out of date. The old manual also focuses on image intensifiers, while for the exam you also need to be familiar with flat-panel detectors. As a result, you can ignore some information on out-of-date equipment. Just be aware that both image intensifiers and flat panels are covered by the exam.

I think online practice questions, such as FluoroPrep can be helpful and you can pick up some easy points by doing them. Some of their questions are inaccurate, so be aware. They will ask about the same topic multiple times in an effort to force you to remember. I think this can be a useful way to shore up weaknesses.

How much time to devote will depend on your study habits, but I thought this was easier than most of the exams I have taken so far. It was certainly easier than the various USMLE steps, ABIM exams, and Echocardiology exam. It was perhaps comparable to the Nuclear Cardiology exam for those of you who have taken it. Still, the exam should be taken seriously. Smart people have failed, and nobody wants to delay the start of their career because they bombed the fluoro exam. I would review the ASRT modules/questions, read over the old California manual (it goes pretty quickly), and then practice with the Fluoroprep questions.

I hope that helps. Again, I did my best to be helpful without crossing any legal/ethical lines. Good luck.
Hi all, I'm not a frequent poster, but I thought I would start a thread about the California Fluoroscopy exam. This might be relevant to other fields that use fluoro, but I'll post to Cardiology since that is my field. There is a separate radiography exam, which most people (at least in cardiology) won't need. Ask your employer which exams you need before you sign up.

Obtaining the license is a pain and took longer than I anticipated. If you're planning on taking a job in California that requires it, get started early! In order to apply you need a California medical license, which is a chore by itself. You need to send a form via mail (no electronic applications) to the California Department of Public Health, which takes about 6 weeks to review your application. You will be notified via mail with instructions on how to register for the exam. You will pay the ARRT online, which now administers the exam on behalf of the state. They will then send you a testing permit via mail (this takes about 2 weeks) to schedule the exam with Pearson. Once you have scheduled and taken the exam, the state will report back to you in 45 days. So, as you can see, the process is quite slow. Getting any response from the Department of Public Health is a fool's errand.

The exam itself is actually pretty reasonable, in my opinion. Apparently, the ARRT took over the exam a few years ago, so information on the old exam may be out-of-date. So be wary of any old questions you see floating around the internet. For obvious reasons, I can't disclose test questions or specific topics, but I think I can provide some general guidance on how to prepare. In general, the exam emphasizes radiation safety more than anything else, so make sure you know all aspects of radiation safety. Everything from occupational limits, radiation protection, and physics is fair game. They especially want to know about what the operator can do to limit risk, so know how your settings at the table can affect radiation dose. They also devote a significant number of questions to the technical aspects of fluoroscopy, so you'll have to know the basics about how the device works, including the x-ray generator, the image intensifier and the flat panel detector. Radiation units are also fair game, and you can pick up some easy points by knowing these. There are other topics, which are covered in the blueprint (e.g., regulations, information technology, consent/ethics, etc).

I think most questions were pretty fair, without too many esoteric questions. Most are single-best answer questions, but they do have some other formats, so be prepared for that. They try to ask questions with a single correct answer, where the other options are unambiguously wrong. Question stems are short enough that most people won't have to worry about the time limit. There are also experimental questions, so don't let tricky questions throw you. I believe 90 of the questions are scored and 30 are experimental. I don't think I disclosed anything protected here. This information just confirms what is available on the exam blueprint.

So, how to review? Most people use the ASRT modules and practice questions. In general, I thought the quality of these was poor. They often focused on unnecessary details about history and legislation. The authors showed a poor understanding of the technical aspects of fluoroscopy, so I found it impossible to learn about certain topics (like how a flat panel detector works) from them. They also devote separate chapters to portable vs fixed fluoroscopy units, which is a strange decision. The longest chapter was devoted to radiation to the eye (sigh). The readings are very dry. The questions are marginally better, but often focus on unnecessary granular detail. They also don't provide any feedback on the option choices, so it's hard to learn from them.

The old manual written by the state of California is still out there on the internet. It's actually pretty good, though also very dry. When you take away the appendices and index, it isn't terribly long and provides a lot of useful information. Just be aware that certain things may be out of date. The old manual also focuses on image intensifiers, while for the exam you also need to be familiar with flat-panel detectors. As a result, you can ignore some information on out-of-date equipment. Just be aware that both image intensifiers and flat panels are covered by the exam.

I think online practice questions, such as FluoroPrep can be helpful and you can pick up some easy points by doing them. Some of their questions are inaccurate, so be aware. They will ask about the same topic multiple times in an effort to force you to remember. I think this can be a useful way to shore up weaknesses.

How much time to devote will depend on your study habits, but I thought this was easier than most of the exams I have taken so far. It was certainly easier than the various USMLE steps, ABIM exams, and Echocardiology exam. It was perhaps comparable to the Nuclear Cardiology exam for those of you who have taken it. Still, the exam should be taken seriously. Smart people have failed, and nobody wants to delay the start of their career because they bombed the fluoro exam. I would review the ASRT modules/questions, read over the old California manual (it goes pretty quickly), and then practice with the Fluoroprep questions.

I hope that helps. Again, I did my best to be helpful without crossing any legal/ethical lines. Good luck.
 
Does anyone know if you actually receive an actual paper permit or certificate in the mail after passing this exam?
 
Yes, you do receive an actual printed permit in the mail. You get the results a few weeks ahead of the paper certificate, which you can use to show hospitals for credentialing. Still, the process is long so get started early!
 
Yes, you do receive an actual printed permit in the mail. You get the results a few weeks ahead of the paper certificate, which you can use to show hospitals for credentialing. Still, the process is long so get started early!


Captain how many weeks after the test you get the permit and how many weeks after it do you get the certificate? Is there a way to search online and does it coincide with the result or the certificate?
 
Captain how many weeks after the test you get the permit and how many weeks after it do you get the certificate? Is there a way to search online and does it coincide with the result or the certificate?

It takes about 45 days from the date of the test. The printed certificate follows that by a couple of weeks or so. There is a searchable database online that hospitals can use for verification. There is really nothing that can be done to speed up the process.
 
It takes about 45 days from the date of the test. The printed certificate follows that by a couple of weeks or so. There is a searchable database online that hospitals can use for verification. There is really nothing that can be done to speed up the process.


It is truly not a friendly and painful process to register, get the test and the results. Some other prometric tests give you feedback on the same day of testing and the process is less lengthy/complicated to get registered to the test. There has to be a better way.
 
Hey guys I'm going to be taking the exam in a few days. To be honest I haven't started studying yet. I bought fluoroprep. Anything else I should do to prepare and cram these next few days? I'm planning on going over the questions and ASRT modules. Anything else you'd really recommend?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Hey guys I'm going to be taking the exam in a few days. To be honest I haven't started studying yet. I bought fluoroprep. Anything else I should do to prepare and cram these next few days? I'm planning on going over the questions and ASRT modules. Anything else you'd really recommend?
I just took it may29 and found out I passed. Took over 6 weeks to get the result. You can check online for your license to pop up and that let me know one week earlier than mail. I called california health office at 6 weeks and they didn’t call back. Anyways back to the exam I just studied off the 6 asrt modules and did the questions. They were extremely
Detailed and took time to get through. Read them twice. That’s all I did. I was able to pass but definitely there were other areas and the syllabus is a good guide. After the exam I recognized a lot on the syllabus. That said it isn’t impossible but it isn’t a joke either but I did pass just using the asrt modules. I did feel as if I failed walking out. So if you only have a few days go over the asrt modules and use the fluro questions just to mix it up and review syllabus. That will be enough to pass
 
Hey guys I'm going to be taking the exam in a few days. To be honest I haven't started studying yet. I bought fluoroprep. Anything else I should do to prepare and cram these next few days? I'm planning on going over the questions and ASRT modules. Anything else you'd really recommend?
.

I would look at the old syllabus and do some Flouroprep questions. As mentioned above, the test is pretty straight-forward, but you don't want to delay starting a job because you failed. I would study for a week (that's what I did). The ARST modules aren't very good. None of the above sources really cover flat panel detectors so you might take 20 minutes and read a little about their design and operation.
 
Just found out I passed yesterday. Took 8 weeks. Walked out of the exam room thinking I failed.
 
I took the exam in June. The only reference that you need to pass the exam that I took is the one at stanford.edu above. I understand that the exam changed in July 2018. If anyone has experience with the new exam, they should post here.
 
I just took the exam in June of 2020. I thought the modules on the ASRT site were completely useless. I studied off of the fluoroprep test site questions and thought that was much better. The questions are very representative of what you find on the test. I found fluoroprep two nights before the test and wished I had just used that instead of spending $150 or so on the six modules. I left the exam center fairly confident I didn't pass but just recently learned I did really well. They must grade on a curve. Whew.
 
Took the test in June as well. Did fluoroprep and ASRT modules x2.
As long as you understand the concepts, you'll be fine. Test is straight forward- honestly. Walked out feeling like I passed and I really am not a great test taker.
Was 100% sure on about 75% of the questions. About 75% sure on 20%. About 50% sure on 5%. Had no clue on just a few.
 
Took the test in June as well. Did fluoroprep and ASRT modules x2.
As long as you understand the concepts, you'll be fine. Test is straight forward- honestly. Walked out feeling like I passed and I really am not a great test taker.
Was 100% sure on about 75% of the questions. About 75% sure on 20%. About 50% sure on 5%. Had no clue on just a few.
Would you agree that ASRT modules were not as helpful as flouroprep?

From the thread, it appears the test changed in 2018.

Did you find the syllabus/old manual from California (I believe is roughly 150 pages including the appendix) useful?

It sounds like the three major resources are: Syllabus, Flouroprep, and ASRT modules.

Obviously using them all is the most thorough way to go, but in case of limited study time - any recommendations on which to focus on?

I'm leaning Flouroprep and Syllabus based on the responses on the thread.
 
Would you agree that ASRT modules were not as helpful as flouroprep?

From the thread, it appears the test changed in 2018.

Did you find the syllabus/old manual from California (I believe is roughly 150 pages including the appendix) useful?

It sounds like the three major resources are: Syllabus, Flouroprep, and ASRT modules.

Obviously using them all is the most thorough way to go, but in case of limited study time - any recommendations on which to focus on?

I'm leaning Flouroprep and Syllabus based on the responses on the thread.
Not all the ASRT modules were as helpful, but some more so.
I did not look at the old syllabus. Only what was referenced from fluoroprep.

ASRT modules + fluoroprep. Look at the Outline given by the state; basically just a laundry list of terms. If you understand every term (ie you understand the concept), you will pass.
 
Anyone take this recently? Any advice?
 
Not all the ASRT modules were as helpful, but some more so.
I did not look at the old syllabus. Only what was referenced from fluoroprep.

ASRT modules + fluoroprep. Look at the Outline given by the state; basically just a laundry list of terms. If you understand every term (ie you understand the concept), you will pass.

this outline?
 
Hi all, I'm not a frequent poster, but I thought I would start a thread about the California Fluoroscopy exam. This might be relevant to other fields that use fluoro, but I'll post to Cardiology since that is my field. There is a separate radiography exam, which most people (at least in cardiology) won't need. Ask your employer which exams you need before you sign up.

Obtaining the license is a pain and took longer than I anticipated. If you're planning on taking a job in California that requires it, get started early! In order to apply you need a California medical license, which is a chore by itself. You need to send a form via mail (no electronic applications) to the California Department of Public Health, which takes about 6 weeks to review your application. You will be notified via mail with instructions on how to register for the exam. You will pay the ARRT online, which now administers the exam on behalf of the state. They will then send you a testing permit via mail (this takes about 2 weeks) to schedule the exam with Pearson. Once you have scheduled and taken the exam, the state will report back to you in 45 days. So, as you can see, the process is quite slow. Getting any response from the Department of Public Health is a fool's errand.

The exam itself is actually pretty reasonable, in my opinion. Apparently, the ARRT took over the exam a few years ago, so information on the old exam may be out-of-date. So be wary of any old questions you see floating around the internet. For obvious reasons, I can't disclose test questions or specific topics, but I think I can provide some general guidance on how to prepare. In general, the exam emphasizes radiation safety more than anything else, so make sure you know all aspects of radiation safety. Everything from occupational limits, radiation protection, and physics is fair game. They especially want to know about what the operator can do to limit risk, so know how your settings at the table can affect radiation dose. They also devote a significant number of questions to the technical aspects of fluoroscopy, so you'll have to know the basics about how the device works, including the x-ray generator, the image intensifier and the flat panel detector. Radiation units are also fair game, and you can pick up some easy points by knowing these. There are other topics, which are covered in the blueprint (e.g., regulations, information technology, consent/ethics, etc).

I think most questions were pretty fair, without too many esoteric questions. Most are single-best answer questions, but they do have some other formats, so be prepared for that. They try to ask questions with a single correct answer, where the other options are unambiguously wrong. Question stems are short enough that most people won't have to worry about the time limit. There are also experimental questions, so don't let tricky questions throw you. I believe 90 of the questions are scored and 30 are experimental. I don't think I disclosed anything protected here. This information just confirms what is available on the exam blueprint.

So, how to review? Most people use the ASRT modules and practice questions. In general, I thought the quality of these was poor. They often focused on unnecessary details about history and legislation. The authors showed a poor understanding of the technical aspects of fluoroscopy, so I found it impossible to learn about certain topics (like how a flat panel detector works) from them. They also devote separate chapters to portable vs fixed fluoroscopy units, which is a strange decision. The longest chapter was devoted to radiation to the eye (sigh). The readings are very dry. The questions are marginally better, but often focus on unnecessary granular detail. They also don't provide any feedback on the option choices, so it's hard to learn from them.

The old manual written by the state of California is still out there on the internet. It's actually pretty good, though also very dry. When you take away the appendices and index, it isn't terribly long and provides a lot of useful information. Just be aware that certain things may be out of date. The old manual also focuses on image intensifiers, while for the exam you also need to be familiar with flat-panel detectors. As a result, you can ignore some information on out-of-date equipment. Just be aware that both image intensifiers and flat panels are covered by the exam.

I think online practice questions, such as FluoroPrep can be helpful and you can pick up some easy points by doing them. Some of their questions are inaccurate, so be aware. They will ask about the same topic multiple times in an effort to force you to remember. I think this can be a useful way to shore up weaknesses.

How much time to devote will depend on your study habits, but I thought this was easier than most of the exams I have taken so far. It was certainly easier than the various USMLE steps, ABIM exams, and Echocardiology exam. It was perhaps comparable to the Nuclear Cardiology exam for those of you who have taken it. Still, the exam should be taken seriously. Smart people have failed, and nobody wants to delay the start of their career because they bombed the fluoro exam. I would review the ASRT modules/questions, read over the old California manual (it goes pretty quickly), and then practice with the Fluoroprep questions.

I hope that helps. Again, I did my best to be helpful without crossing any legal/ethical lines. Good luck.

^ what he said. I just took the exam today. did fluoroprep and ASRTx2. Exam is more in line with ASRT and fluoroprep lags behind and is sometimes wrong. The experimental questions (30 of them) were obvious because they had nothing to do with the modules. Some notes:

1. the eye module is overkill and was written by an apparently poorly guided BA. It gets more normal after the anatomy section, but sadly at least some scored questions come from that section.
2. some questions appear nearly verbatim from the test you take on the ASRT modules.
3. the actual exam is far heavier on concepts than is fluoroprep, which asks a plethora of specific detailed knowledge questions. They also show you pictures of actual xrays and make you interpret the error the fluoroscopist utilized in making the distortion.
4. there are no "except" or "not" style questions, and the overwhelmingly majority are single best answer style. got one "rank this" and quite a few "select 2 and only 2" but never got "select all that apply," which shows up on fluoroprep all the time.
5. unlike fluoroprep, you can review flagged questions, so fluoroprep isn't really a good simulator of the exam.
6. the AART exam content outline has this whole thing about infection control but none of the 5 ASRT modules address it nor does it show up on the exam. not sure why that happened.
7. the titles of the ASRT modules is frequently misleading because the modules often "stuff" additional content totally unrelated to the title but that is clearly mentioned in the outline somewhere.

overall, the exam is fair. as a study tip, make sure you read the ASRT 6 module .pdf files cover to cover and if there is a SINGLE term mentioned that is not clear, look it up! There were no terms on the exam not mentioned in the files, but the terms often can be poorly fleshed out. don't overthink the questions. just flag and move on if you're stuck.

good luck!
 
Last edited:
I applied for CA medical license a few weeks ago and it is pending. Can I apply for the floroscopy license while my medical license is pending to save time?
 
Just wanted to add this for easy reference (I took the exam Spring 2022)

California department of public health forms:

California permit application:
(for my job as an EP I selected Fluoroscopy Supervisor and Operator Permit)

The 6 modules people talk about:
-PDF chapters (each chapter was like 15-30 pages long) and then short quizzes after each module (quizzes don't provide explanation for answers)

The fluoroprep questions
-Does explain right and wrong answers
-Not sure how many questions are actually in this, each exam block has 45 questions, and it gives you what seems like a random assortment of questions from its bank each exam. I took 18 of them and by the last few tests was only getting like 5-8 new questions each exam
-Flouroprep asks you which exam you’re taking and it’s the “Fluoroscopy supervisor and operator” one (at least it was for me as an EP)
-Flouroprep has a 150 pg manual from California which was also good to read (I'm not sure if that's anywhere online other than Flouroprep, it seems like it's a public document). The document is called: Syllabus on Fluoroscopy - Radiation Protection 6th Edition

Outline given by the state some people mentioned:

The website that lets you look up your license to see if you passed the fluoroscopy exam before receiving the copy in the mail. It took them 4 weeks to mail the results and about the same for the license to show up on the website, so it wasn't that much faster.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What do you guys think about the 6 ASRT pdf modules versus the ASRT supervisor/operator bundle that's a lot more expensive? Is one better or worth it more than the other?

I hadn't seen or heard of the bundle so not sure how to compare the two. The bundle looks like it's also for radiography supervision. Not sure what's needed for your job but I needed the fluoroscopy permit specifically
 
Just took this test. Studied for a week.

Used some YouTube videos, orthoprep, and the syllabus. It was painful, but felt like I passed. Will update in about 6 weeks once the result is out.
 
I failed this exam twice. Was hoping if anyone could reach out with some helpful material. Feelings really low and in the dumps
 
Just took this test. Studied for a week.

Used some YouTube videos, orthoprep, and the syllabus. It was painful, but felt like I passed. Will update in about 6 weeks once the result is out.
Just an update. I passed the exam.

After graduating from an orthopedic fellowship, I studied for a week. I watched YouTube videos while doing questions for about 5-6 days. On the day before the test, I reviewed the syllabus to make sure I understood everything on there.
 
Just found out that I passed the exam. I started studying about 2 months before the exam doing about an hour of study a night after work.
I did the 6 ASRT modules (gives a good foundation, though did have a lot of extra irrelevant stuff), did fluoroprep questions (though they start to repeat after a while) and a couple of full length tests on fluoroprep. Also read the syllabus mentioned above.
Of note: the actual questions are harder than the fluoroprep questions, so be aware of that. Also, with most questions you either know it or you don't. There aren't many questions where you can deduce the answer from the question stem.
Would recommend knowing the concepts, equations and terms mentioned in the syllabus thoroughly. For me it was worth spending the extra time and money to ensure that I passed on the first attempt, because its a painful exam that I wouldn't want to take again!
Good luck!
 
Last edited:
Just an update. I passed the exam.

After graduating from an orthopedic fellowship, I studied for a week. I watched YouTube videos while doing questions for about 5-6 days. On the day before the test, I reviewed the syllabus to make sure I understood everything on there.
What youtube videos were helpful if you don't mind me asking? Thanks
 


They were very helpful. Good luck!

These were amazing videos, thank you again.

Also, quick question. The ASRT module on eye radiation, is the whole eye anatomy, function, and each layer necessary for the test?
 
has anyone taken this test this year? I heard the syllabus changed quite a bit
 
has anyone taken this test this year? I heard the syllabus changed quite a bit
Bump.

Anyone with updates?

I'm having a hard time finding basic info on this test online. Do you have to take the test in CA or can it be taken anywhere via a testing center?
 
Bump.

Anyone with updates?

I'm having a hard time finding basic info on this test online. Do you have to take the test in CA or can it be taken anywhere via a testing center?
I thought it was just me being an idiot and not understanding the instruction for this test. Online information is hard to understand and I am not even sure which license/certificate I am supposed to apply for as a gastroenterologist who will do ERCP.
 
I thought it was just me being an idiot and not understanding the instruction for this test. Online information is hard to understand and I am not even sure which license/certificate I am supposed to apply for as a gastroenterologist who will do ERCP.

It should be the application for fluoroscopy supervisor/operator license. It is technically called the radiology supervisor and operator application (8230). If I'm incorrect let me know.

The website is convoluted and doesn't explain things well.

The process is as follows and a large part is still paper based application.

Download and fill out the appropriate application form.
Write out the check to the correct entity and for the correct amount.
Include a copy of your medical license.

Mail in.

Wait a couple of weeks.

Eventually you will get a notice that you can take the test and a test ID number. You can schedule at any Pearson Vue testing center. I don't think you have to be in California to take the test.

You have to pay an additional fee I believe for the test.

You have a limited time to schedule and take the test before your eligibility expires. I remember requesting an extension at one point.


They give some good information on the process.
 
Is fluoroprep.com website down for everyone else the past few days? Anyone else experiencing issues with the website? Thanks!
 
Top