Those of you who were at the Phillips/EBME conference (18th Oct 2006) would have heard SEMTA discussing the medical engineering occupational standards; there are 12 units; 3 compulsary units and a further choice of 3 from 9. Units 60-71.

This is the minimum standard required for all techs working in the field of medical device repair and maintenance.

supprisingly they do emulate Capital Medical's modular training structure Module 1-7 www.cap-medical.co.uk (thought I would get that in...)

If you access the SEMTA website and search the site for 'servicing medical equipment' you will be able to download unit 63-71. to download the compulsary units search for: Unit 60: carrying out fault diagnosis on medical equipment Unit 61: testing medical equipment and finally unit 62 carrying out scheduled servicing on medical equipment. alternatively book your accredited level 3 course maped to the standard via www.cap-medical.co.uk

Robbie,

Here's one for you. One of my techies is at Arborfield at the moment, and he reckons they may be handing out a foundation degree there shortly. After you stop laughing uncontrollably (like I did!), your comments please!

Richie

I don't know what Arborfied is getting upto apart from preparing to close down in prepartion for a move to a new location in the not to distant future. The problem Military techs have, is retaining hands on experience when not deployed, once Royal Hospital Haslar disapears, their work becomes very limited, Its a great shame as it will be when Arborfied closes its doors, quite a number of cuyrrent techies employed within NHS came through that school at one time or another.

Well having been in MDSS for 8 years, and just got an MSc in Clinical Engineering, my lot thought it a good career move for me to go back to communications for my next job! Did you hear the F**K OFF all the way up there in Kidderminster?? Out next month, like so many others.

I thought the Arborfield course would have been lurked by a quality organisation like your good selves by now! How Dave "Hale & Pace" Everliegh getting on?

Well having been in MDSS for 8 years, done oodles of extra training (with you lot amongst others as I'm sure you'll remember!) and just got an MSc in Clinical Engineering, my inspired military appointers thought it a good career move for me to go back to communications for my next job! Did you hear the F**K OFF all the way up there in Kidderminster?? Out next month, like so many others.

I thought the Arborfield course would have been lurked by a quality organisation like your good selves by now! How Dave "Hale & Pace" Everleigh getting on?

Welcome to the real world, Snowler. You are lucky to have received all that extra training, Mate (didn’t happen back in my day). But don't worry, there remains plenty of work about if you're not too fussy and willing to actually work.

Good luck. Geoff (ex-M&D 39, Arborfield, 1974 - back in the good old days, that is).

I'm already set up mate thanks. Can't wait to get started!

OK ... four years on ...


SEMTA ... does anyone have any news on all that?


I hear that the once renowned "Arborfield Course" is run by civvies these days. I also hear that (how shall I put it?) the format has changed considerably. In fact, recent attendees have been less than impressed, as it were.

Anyone like to comment on that?

Pity that we don't hear from Snowler very often these days.

Hi folks. As I've said to Geoff in a private post, I can confirm that the course these days is run by civilians. Now, I don't have a problem with that. The problem I have is that they haven't the faintest idea what they are on about.

Leaving aside the shocking standard of the course material (some equipment precis are two pages long!) and their general lack of knowledge of their subject, their total lack of knowledge on the issues 'out there' is inexcusable. They have three military units within twenty minutes drive (a field hospital, a medical regiment and the Defence Dental School) yet when asked why we don't go and visit them I was told "I didn't think of that". That's the standard of people who are teaching there at the moment. Google is their source of info for questions they don't know the answer to.

In fact, probably most worrying of all, they are under the impression that we don't take equipment to pieces 'in the field'.

The course is so bad that, on arrival, the RAF M&D techs are told to just forget everything they have been told at Arborfield. A sad situation for a course run by the Army's centre of excellence for electronics training.

Basically I think it says a lot about the adaptability of our technicians that we are able to do the job despite, rather than because of the training we receive.

Meant to say on arrival at RAF Henlow for my RAF techs comment. They go there for a while for continuation training.

I see the MSc is mentioned in a previous post. Does anyone think this is worth doing? I've done a BEng in Electrical/Electronic Engineering and from what I've seen of it it does seem questionable. I have heard that it isn't accredited (not sure if this is true) and I've also seen two guys do exactly the same project (virtually word for word) in their final year which does make me wonder what sort of standard we're actually looking at as a course. Are the uni just taking the money without applying due diligence? I would like to think any educational establishment worth its salt would pick up on this.

I believe it's true to say that standards have fallen in general over the years, Jocky.

Arborfield used to churn out useful blokes. Many of them are now contributors to this forum.

City & Guilds (or ONC) used to be entirely adequate. Now it seems that every Tom, Dick and Ali needs to have a degree just to get on the first rung of the ladder.

Arte et Marte!

Just in case anyone is confused I meant the MSc was questionable, not the BEng!

Geoff, there does seem to be a race for qualifications(The recently floated idea that all nurses should have a degree is a case in point) so that you don't get left behind, especially when in the mob and not having a real handle on what's happening in the 'real' world.

Keeping up with this 'arms race' is the only reason I did my degree. I had an HNC in the same subject before.

Don't worry, there are still plenty of opportunities in the "real world" for blokes who don't mind (not too proud to do) - prefer and enjoy, even - "hands-on" work.

You won't get left behind. Believe me, you are already way out in front, if I know anything about it (and I like to think that I do).

Good point Geoff, how many of these degree types are actually willing to put the pen down, roll up their sleeves and get the job done?

Especially in your neck of the woods that why you are there to crack the whip Neil. I am sure you enjoy doing that.....

Here we are fine, I am talking about the "Western" world

I would have thought the hands on aspect was what drew a lot of us to this job. As a relative newbie to this job I'm obviously horrendously naive!!!

OK, now I understand ... did Umish used to be one of your blokes, then, Neil?

That must explain how come y'all get on so well!

@Jocky: don't worry, Mate. If you spend any time on here, you'll soon pick up the drift, so to speak. As I say, just plough your own furrow, enjoy the magic whilst it lasts (that is, until the novelty wears off), and ignore those who may have an axe to grind.

A MSc is only worth it depending on the course content, I would recommend the Open University's MSc in Medical Physics. Very good sections on X-ray, Ultrasound and MRI.

There does seem a lot of degree's that are just there for people to say they have done one and like even your School exams you'll probably never use again!

The not putting the pen down stage or getting their head out of the user manual comes between HND and degree level and it is one skill you need to do a MSc.

Cheers, Chris, interesting though I'm still a bit scarred from my BEng. I'm not quite ready for such a big undertaking yet. I couldn't complete the honours part of my degree because work took over and I've now got a six-month old to contend with! Not conducive to any type of serious study I'm sure you'll agree.

I think you're right about the 'just to say you've got one' aspect. As I've said earlier, the MSc that some of the guys I know are doing seems a case in point. I know the guys are working hard on it but I do get the feeling it's not necessarily worth the paper it's printed on. There is also the issue of people being accepted straight on to a Masters without possessing a degree beforehand. I'm not sure how this would be viewed by prospective employers.

On the other hand (and for balance), some of the more outstanding biomeds I ever met were what you might call "perpetual students" (or maybe that should be "scholars"). Not in the sense of formal courses and qualifications (some of the best blokes had next to none), but rather the enquiring mind set, thirst for knowledge (just had to know), real understanding, mastering their art, enjoyment of discussions with their peers ... and stuff like that. As I have been known to remark before, successful biomed is more about personal qualities (attitudes, mainly) than anything else.

You just need to set aside the pen when picking up the screwdriver (and vice versa). If you don't have the schematics - sit down and think about it, then sketch out your own!

I believe that "learning by doing" always works well. Even experienced techs spend time mulling stuff over on completion of a job. "Ah yes, now I understand what the machine is doing" and/or "why did that work? ... how could I have been more efficient"? We used to call it "the debrief" - or, if you like, "follow up". That's how you really learn (if, that is, you're interested in doing practical, useful - paying - work)! And happily it's become a whole lot easier these days, with the wealth of the internet available.

And don't forget (as Richard Feynman said):- "What one fool can understand, another can"!

In short, a bloke would learn more of real value in a single field trip to Africa than on any number of BSc's, MSc's ... or any other Sc's.

Geoff, I would not put Umish as one of 'our' blokes, neither would I put him as one of 'your' blokes.

And so the mystery rolls on.

Tune in soon, folks, for the next "exciting" installment!

It's not what you know Geoff it's what you do with it! There's a lot of "perpetual students" who when presented with a new piece of equipment will sit down and read a 200 page manual from cover to cover before even touching it.

Above BEng level your expected to gain a sifting ability and to decide what information is relevant to the task and what can be referred to later. This is the ability that some people just pick up whereas others need to be spoon-feed. It's a bit similar to the transition between school level and graduate/college student where previous they've been told to do things and now they have to make more decisions for themselves.

I can't argue with you there, Chris.

But I hope that's not the kind of "perpetual student" implied in my earlier post.

"Above BEng level ..." - well, I must be more "advanced" than I had previously imagined ... I was able to think for myself "above" C&G level (and so, if I remember rightly, were my mates)!

But that's enough from me. I tire easily these days. Especially when hearing about "educated idiots" (yawn)! And I certainly don't have the time (nor the inclination) to "spoon feed" anybody!

It's not a case of thinking for your self, when you did C&G I image you went to classes and were taught from a set course. You might of done projects but you weren't told read this text and then search of more information. (then again perhaps it was a very advanced C&G)

The flaw I was describing is the person who takes in too much information to actually do the task at hand and thus takes weeks to do a task instead of days.

Yes. They're known as "Jobsworths". But to be honest, I have never met such a person (in our line of work) outside of the NHS!

Have you?

Of course C&G was structured. All good (proper) courses are (or should be). But there again, isn't that what this thread is meant to be about (see Rob's original post)?

Jocky - It is not suprising that your comment that the Arborfield course is bad. Coupled with a fast paced procurment regime that forgets that there is a maint burden and a general lack of will to develop the course has contributed to its degradation over the years.

A procurement process without any regard for the subsequent maintenance burden was the norm* back in my day as well, Fordy. In fact I used to spend a lot of my time trying to recover from that sorry state of affairs. One lot (budget) bought the kit, whilst it was left to another lot (budget) to maintain it. With very little (if any) communication between the two parties.

However, I would add that my experiences in that regard have not really differed much since hanging up my pace-stick (many years ago now), so I can only conclude that, regrettably, it goes with the turf of being involved in biomed tech support whichever "enterprise"** we are involved in. In short, the medics buy the kit, and we get lumbered with sorting out the rubbish when it starts going pear-shaped. Plus ça change!

But - procurement, maintenance planning and training the techs are different branches of the tree, surely? If the once renowned Arborfield course has now become (what's that phrase that gets used so much use these days?) ... not fit for purpose; then let it be consigned to the bin of history (just like so many of the traditions that have served so well in the past).

Lack of planning for the maintenance burden didn't matter too much back in the days when we trained blokes to actually fix the kit. The "can do" approach (or mind set, if you like). These days (from what I have heard) it sounds more like "call in the contractors"! Just like civvy street in fact.

* I'm talking about medical equipment here, of course, rather than the "green kit".
** Nice Baboon Speak word there.

Geoff,

Get a contractor is 'apparently' the way to go!! However I still beleive that the technician is worth his pay by effecting repair at point of failure regardless of politics, whilst adhering to supporting manuals and challenging commercial gain. As engineers - always say - WHY!!

Clinical facing on the ground engineers, most important, you cant beat it , med & dent techs are worth their wieght in gold.

Controversial? May be - dont say, just do it.

You're preaching to the converted there, Fordy.

We went to the same school, remember? And I like to think that (unlike a few others who may have fallen by the wayside) I have still kept the faith, more or less.

Controversial? No, I wouldn’t have thought so. Traditional? Yes. Effective? For sure.

C&G plus plenty of common sense and the ability to ask questions. This is what makes a good tech.

The world would be a far better place if a few of us got together and set up a School for Practical Biomeds. Minimal classroom work, but plenty of hands-on, and "need to know" only.

Occupational Standards? How about Biomed A to Z (Anaesthetics to ... er, X-Rays - plus YAG lasers and Zeners?)

How about it, Neil (something worthwhile in which to sink your stash of cash)?

It would need to be outside of the UK, to escape all the BS that applies there. How about Cyprus?

Meanwhile, I think I know where to lay my hands on a container load of junk kit ... you know, to practise on! Any fertile young mind could rapidly attain Genius Guy status after total immersion in a pile of faulty infusion pumps for a week or two!

The first problem is, 'if you set up outside of the UK who would pay to join the course' ?????? Especially under this government.

The students would have to find the money. Grants, bursaries, or from their own pockets.

But we wouldn't be charging that much, Neil. Keep it simple, Mate. We're not talking posh here, and I'm thinking more of overseas students, if you know what I mean.

For instance, they would need to take turns in peeling the spuds. Good for humility, the soul, bonding ... and all that good stuff.

Anyway, which government are you refering to? The Majlis-al-Shura?

Cyprus would not be a good idea, but if you are talking overseas students, what about either the Philippines or Thailand.

Wherever you decide, Neil. Sana'a, even.

Go ahead and set it up ... then give me a call!

I see a few problems with your idea Geoff.

It seems that in regards to equipment maintenance the situation is falling into two camps, cheap as possible so that GP's get their QOF points or quality organisations.

Where GP's are only interested in their QOF points your probably going to be overqualified. In the past when I come across a new tested sticker (or should that be visually inspected) I do a quick search , I've seen quite a few where the company was a PAT test company who've decided to expand into medical equipment or where the supposed technicians/engineers look highly suspiciously like sales reps. If the company doesn't repair, but instead sells new, or is just doing a glorified PAT test they don't need such qualified staff.

Whereas if you decide to market yourself as a quality organisation you'll probably find your under qualified. I know of at least two companies who have lost work because they couldn't prove their employees where qualified to at least HND level or could prove their quality.

Your points are well taken Chris, but which post are you responding to?

I'm well aware of "sticker maintenance", Mate. I've seen plenty of that, believe me. My buddies and I often have a laugh about it. How about:- "if it glows, it goes" (out the workshop door)? Ha, ha.

But speaking for myself, I'm not particularly interested in servicing either GP's or "quality organisations" (by that I presume you mean the NHS, or Private Healthcare providers in the UK).

That's not what I do! Charity work, and tech support of others ... remember?

We have never lost work (as far as I'm aware), mainly (I think) because we give a decent service at rates that are pitched at the low end of the scale. And, I might add, folk come back to us because they appreciate our honesty, and the fact that (being technically - rather than sales - driven) we are not perceived as either cowboys or ... er, bullshitters!

I was referring to your "School for Practical Biomeds"

As for "quality organisations" there's still a lot of private companies out there that sell their services on quality than quantity.

Although since QOF points were introduced with the tick box mentality, there does seem to be a lot of small companies springing up just to help GP's tick those boxes for the cheapest price.

It wouldn't surprise me if once they saturate the UK they aim further afield. Therefore your "School for Practical Biomeds" would either have to consist of a couple weeks crash course to be of value to students aiming for those tick box companies or at least be up to HND standard for those based on quality.

Oh. I guess you missed the bits about the Philippines, Thailand, Cyprus or ... er, Yemen, then?

Somehow I doubt that anyone aiming for (what you are calling) "tick box companies" would be the sort of blokes that would interest Old Sweats such as Neil or myself.

However, if GP's in the UK are happy to hire such companies, PAT testers and such, then that's up to them, I reckon.

But they will never saturate the market, for the simple reason that (as ever) there are not enough techs available (properly trained or not).

And (lastly) be careful not to confuse "quality" (as in servicing companies) with "expensive". They are not necessarily the same thing. To the layman, the Rolls Royce motor-car may be perceived as "quality", when, in actual fact the Toyota Avensis* probably has a greater claim (in that it meets fully the requirements of its owner).

* Other quality cars are certainly available.

If a school is to be established to train biomedical technicians, of course accreditation will be sought as the students will need a certificate upon graduating. Chris, there is a wider world of biomedical other than GP clinics.

In the sort of school that would be of interest to me, accreditation would be an unnecessary expense, Neil. Would any so-called "accreditation agency" know any more than us about what is required to train a biomed tech?

Our "accreditation" (should such ever be needed) would be the glowing testimonials of our grateful alumni.

I would also issue individual certificates only. There would be no "blanks" for the unscrupulous to trade, or fill in themselves, and any that were copied would immediately become apparent! As you know, I am not interested in folk like that!

In fact, thinking about it a bit more, I would probably put some sort of wording on certificates to the effect that their validity can be confirmed by calling this-or-that number, website, email address or whatever.

Neil yes there certainly is a wider world. I don't know if you know of the situation in the UK, but a GP gets QOF points on various aspects and then money for the number of QOF points they get. Maintenance of equipment is a area that they can get QOF points on. Unfortunately there's no specification on what is required to get the QOF point, therefore as with any Government scheme small companies spring up to where they see a opportunity and once the market is saturated they expand into other areas.

Although maybe Geoff's going about this all the wrong way? Without accreditation any training scheme would be worthless. Perhaps it would be far better to provide a volunteering scheme where the individual could gain experience and instead leave training to the likes of Eastwood Park and colleges and universities?

I'm sorry Chris, but we're obviously tuned in to different wavelengths here.

Let those who have the means to attend at Eastwood Park et al (if, indeed, there is any et al) ... whilst others shall continue to need to make alternative arrangements. After all, Falfield is a long way from Gaborone (for example) (no QOF* out there, either).

Forget it, Mate ... the whole thing was meant tongue in cheek, you know. Do you really think that (if we were to be involved in practical training such as that hinted at) we would come on here, and broadcast it to the world (to be sniped at from right, left and centre)?

Have you never heard of the saying:- "Know Thine Enemy"?

* Quality and Outcomes Framework.

Oh sorry Geoff I thought these forums were for serious discussions, I didn't realise in my abscence you'd bought a bridge to grumble under!

I think you must have confused this forum with one or other of the others ... you know, those learned bodies for which you have to pay to be a member.

Sorry, Mate ... but it's always best to review the whole thread.

Meanwhile, at our school, a sense of humour will always be a definite plus!

What's QOF it sounds rude???

It's here and here a voluntary scheme that was part of the government's disastrous new GP contacts.

By no means perfect, perhaps ... but why "disastrous"?

What "incentives" were in place before for GP's et al to have their kit checked occasionally?

And who (apart from the "tick-box companies") is supposed to check the kit? Don’t tell me that NHS biomed sheds have the time and/or resources (or indeed, the inclination) to do that!

An opportunity arose, and the Private Sector stepped up to the mark to fullfil the requirement. What's the problem? We're not taking about ICU's and Operating Theatres and such here, after all.

Well Geoff it all depends on perspective, but just from the wikipedia article the government expected GP's to only reach 70% of the QOF points in the first year but instead they got 90% without much indication of improvement. It is thus one of the reasons some GP's got big salary increases.

It's also the reason your GP surgery is probably now closed out of hours and passed on to a out of hours service. Where in one case a German doctor gave someone a overdose.

It also targets particular medical conditions which means if your a GP who's practice is located in an area with immigrants coming in with diseases no longer seen in the UK, your basically screwed.

As for who's supposed to check the kit, there's still quality companies out there and some NHS departments do cover an area instead of just a hospital. With a lack of specification for the level of service both will just have to either drop their standards or promote their quality.

Sorry Mate ... I don't make Government Policy. That's way above my pay grade, I'm afraid.

Geoff,

Interest in your comment referring to practical hands on training. Apart from the electrical safety testing, what would be your key equipment areas where current practical skills training are lacking?

The simple answer is that it would depend upon the student(s). I am imagining blokes from overseas, after all.

To my mind there is no big deal about electrical safety. It is part of the ethos, but is by no means the "be all and end all" of biomed. I'm far more interested in what we might call "personal qualities".

But as an aid to understanding, I would be also like to see blokes carry out EST without an Electrical Safety Tester!

Mmm - some defining start standard - may be tricky with overseas students,
Personal Qualities - integrity, self discipline and technical expertise/talent, spring to mind...
then... practical all the way, (megga and avo perhaps!!)

When did you last crank a Megger then, Fordy?

Not tricky. I reckon I can suss out a tech in under five minutes!

But about the Personal Qualities:- yes, yes, yes ... plus my usual favourite - willingness to work.

...now let me think, twice the working voltage springs to mind and it would be around the early 90s doing ignition leads!!

That was in my earlier days as an electrician before I retraded.