Home | Articles | Products | Services | Jobs | Forum | Downloads | Press | Contact Us

Page 11 of 17 < 1 2 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 16 17 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#17323 - 19/01/06 10:39 AM Re: Disclosing AFC results
derlwynwebber Offline
Newbie

Registered: 31/01/04
Posts: 3
Loc: Wales uk
No don't know of any, but if i'm right or if anybody can clarify it, Without having this registration in the not so distant future you will not be able to work as a medical electronics engineer in the health service and I even wonder if you are an external company engineer whether they should be registered aswell.

Top
#17324 - 19/01/06 11:21 AM Re: Disclosing AFC results
Tony Dowman Offline
Sage

Registered: 17/05/01
Posts: 457
If you are correct then derlwynn, its back to the 70s and the good old " Closed Shop " beloved of the Mighty Militant Trade Unions !!! laugh laugh Come back Arthur Scargill, Derk Hatton, Red Robbo all is forgiven !!!! wink wink

Top
#17325 - 19/01/06 11:49 AM Re: Disclosing AFC results
Dave H Offline
Sage

Registered: 27/12/01
Posts: 377
Loc: Southport
Your view then Tony is we can all call ourselves Brain Surgeons and practice accordingly frown
_________________________
Why worry, Be happy!

Top
#17326 - 19/01/06 01:25 PM Re: Disclosing AFC results
Anonymous
Unregistered


I think all registration means in practice is that individuals' will not be able to work in job roles that have registered titles - employees in these job-roles will have to meet the requirements of registation and be regulated in this case. For regulation to work, i.e. to ensure a skilled/trained workforce, that meets HPC requirements, then employers have to employ individuals in regulated job-roles only. Otherwise things will probably carry on as usual for those that don't have registered job-roles, irrespective of regulation.

Top
#17327 - 19/01/06 02:46 PM Re: Disclosing AFC results
Paul Allum Offline
Adept

Registered: 30/11/05
Posts: 85
Loc: Kent
It'll be a lot faster, and probably easier, to join the voluntary register and transfer over than it will to join up under HPC rules. Plus I believe that voluntary registration did help in our gradings, as we were able to put in the job descriptions that the profession was becoming registered, and as such the BASE qualification is a degree equivalent. Hence the (accepted by our matching panels) argument that mto4's are Msc. level qualified. (if pushed we could have shown that some of us have degrees and recorded evidence of more than two years intensive classroom type specialist training during our careers, but no questions were asked smile )

If you don't register you should still be able to work but only in a "supervised" position afaik

Paul

Top
#17328 - 19/01/06 03:23 PM Re: Disclosing AFC results
Paul Allum Offline
Adept

Registered: 30/11/05
Posts: 85
Loc: Kent
Quote:
Originally posted by Paul Allum:
East Kent Medical physics (including rehab engineering)results so far are

MTO5 = Band 8b

ALL MTO4 = Band 7 (all matched with one job description apparently, though 7 were submitted varying widely)

all MTO 3 = band 6 ( again only one JD appears to have been used by HR)
Update: We are finally getting the correct matching report through, and the posts have been matched individually, as far as I can tell.
The Mto 5 matched to the generic "Healthcare Scientist Professional Manager" profile (initially asked for JAQ but panel were asked to consider this profile)

Top
#17329 - 20/01/06 09:31 AM Re: Disclosing AFC results
RoJo Offline
Hero

Registered: 08/07/02
Posts: 1392
Loc: Temporarily in "The Smoke" but...
These Healthcare Scientist profiles seem good (generous) ones to get matched to if you can. They should be taking over from all the different technician/technologist profiles.
Robert
_________________________
Only trying to help and spread the word

Top
#17330 - 20/01/06 05:43 PM Re: Disclosing AFC results
Bioman Offline
Sage

Registered: 19/02/03
Posts: 380
Loc: UK
Does anyone have a link to the Healthcare Scientist profiles?

Top
#17331 - 20/01/06 06:22 PM Re: Disclosing AFC results
Eddie Whelan Offline
Visionary

Registered: 04/12/03
Posts: 40
Loc: Dept. of Clinical Engineering ...
Hello. I hope this gets you in!

>>> Health science services - Agenda for Change national job profiles


Ed.......

Edited to stop long link breaking the page

Top
#17332 - 20/01/06 06:26 PM Re: Disclosing AFC results
Anonymous
Unregistered


Extract from National Profiles for Healthcare Science

Page 1 of 18 23 November 2005:

Quote:
EXPLANATORY NOTE: 23 NOVEMBER 2005

Note: The generic Healthcare Science profiles are intended to cover a wide range of professional groupings and healthcare science disciplines, which are listed in Healthcare Scientist Career Framework supporting Agenda for Change document. These include, for example, perfusionists, biomedical scientists working in a range of pathology disciplines , phlebotomists and cervical cytology technologists, clinical scientists working in pathology, genetics, embryology, medical physics and engineering and the physiological sciences , clinical physiologists and clinical technologists in a wide range of disciplines (formerly known as medical technical officers), medical illustrators and clinical and Maxillofacial Prosthetist & Technologist (MPT) jobs.
One thing that surprises me is that Medical Technology, i.e. EBME-like Engineering job profiles, are in a seperate part of Heathcare Services portfolio despite the Medical Physics Engineering profiles, in the Clinical Sciences, being almost identical. Does this imply that Engineers and Technologists in EBME will not necessarily be considered "on-par" with "Engineers" and "Technologists" performing similar maintenance roles in Medical Physics?

Or does it mean, possibly in the future, that those working in Medical Physics will be matched to Medical Technology and subsequently identical HCS profiles - to bring similar or identical job roles in-line? Otherwise there is the potential for discrepancies in HCS matching applied in the future depending upon whether individuals are working in Medical Physics or EBME.

Differentiation between individuals doing the same job but working in different types of organisation might impact on the requirements of KSF, NOS and regulation in future despite almost identical roles. Is this the point where we see divergence between ex-MTOs employed in equipment maintenance, possibly working in EBME and those ex-MTOs working in Medical Physics regarding profiling for Healthcare Science roles in the future? Just a thought - particularly if it affects job-mobility (between EBME and Medical Physics and vice-versa) in the future.

I guess the majority in Medical Physics have been matched to Medical Physics profiles and those in EBME have been matched to the Medical Technology profiles.

Top
Page 11 of 17 < 1 2 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 16 17 >



Moderator:  DaveC in Oz, KM, RoJo 
Sponsors
Press Releases
Who's Online
9 registered (Nozza, DaveC in Oz, Chris Glass, Mofe, Huw, kmadhavesh, Ed SWM, Pete B, READ), 303 Guests and 11 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
May
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31