To all regarding registration of ‘Clinical Technologists’

I have very grave concerns about the proposed registration scheme. There is clear political agenda to register healthcare workers. However, those staff who maintain, repair and service medical devices are basically engineering staff - with engineering qualifications. They are not healthcare workers as more usually considered by the Healthcare Professions Council (HPC).

Engineers already have a registration scheme under the Engineering Council take a look at there web site http://www.engc.org.uk/

Be absolutely clear the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) are responsible for this registration process proceeding as a result of a petition they have made to the HPC (I have been unable to get copy despite a promise by the HPC to send me copy). I personally feel that IPEM do not have the engineering credentials to be placing such a scheme forward and that the Institute of Electrical Engineers (IEE) should be involved as they understand all the issues involved as they are more commonly involved in national and international standards! Prior to 1992, IPEM were the Hospital Physicists Association, they then renamed themselves to the Institute of Physics and Science in Medicine and then in the mid nineties again named themselves to IPEM. I also believe the HPC do not understand the engineering (specifically commercial) issues as they are only used to dealing with healthcare workers.

It is important to remember that only 722 people voted for this on IPEM’s voluntary register to go ahead (only 51% on the register voted at all). Most of our staff knew nothing about this voluntary register. Few appear to understand the wider implications, questions and personal cost, as this debate has not happened. This number of people must represent a tiny proportion of the staff in the NHS and commercial sector involved in the maintenance, repair and service of medical devices.

I have made a wide range of comments and asked numerous questions regarding this process directly to the Chief Scientific Officer, Professor Sue Hill (whose background I believe is in Pulmonary Physiology). I have yet to get satisfactory answers and have had to resort to contacting my MP. For those that are interested I suggest they take a look the document I have prepared for the IEE http://www.medeng.net/IEE_Report.htm.

My chief concern is that there has not been sufficient consultation with all the various stakeholders. Regarding the meeting on the 26th of November which IPEM mention on their web site regarding consultation and agreeing a minimum qualification: Only one union was represented (AMICUS), and not UNISON i.e. the main union that usually represent our EBME staff. Although a member of AIME claimed to represent the IEE I have confirmed with the IEE policy unit that this person was not capable of representing the IEE when it came to matters of policy and registration issues etc.

See: http://www.iee.org/Policy/ and

I have contacted Professor Sue Hill office to inform her of this situation. The meeting to discuss all the issues with all the stakeholders was only given approximately 1 hour and I have been unable to get the minutes!

There are many commercial companies providing maintenance service both in house and as manufacturers and suppliers. Yet that has been no consultation with the commercial sector! Where occupations are regulated by the HPC the same staff in industry must also be regulated – This is how it works!

My department directly competes with these companies. It is untenable that our staff will have to be registered and yet externally companies would have to have no qualifications whatsoever.

Also I feel the requirement for a new registration scheme has not yet been addressed sufficiently. The IPEM suggest that because engineers work on medical devices that they can cause harm to the patient. The same argument would apply to electricians and plumbers in the NHS, where does this argument stop. Almost all medical devices demand the user carries out checks before the equipment is used and the equipment is designed to rigorous international standards to ensure that user can ascertain whether the equipment functions correctly. I would like to see the statistical evidence (not hearsay) to show that EBME staffs have directly caused harm to patients as a result of poor maintenance. To date none has been presented by IPEM or the DoH. If there is evidence it should be available through the much more complete adverse incident reporting that is now demanded by the DoH. This registration has a potential to be an expensive exercise for no purpose.

Apart from the existing Engineering Council registration scheme many EBME departments have invested heavily in externally audited quality systems such as ISO9000. Staff competency is an essential element of these systems.

Again as many have highlighted, this is not a criticism of any individual but about concerns over a process that appears very poorly defined. In my opinion this is not an issue with IPEM as they do not represent many EBME staff, especially on employment issues. It would be unthinkable to bring in a new registration for nurses, for example, without consulting the nurses unions. I am deeply concerned that this registration could have a negative effect on the service our department delivers and the ability to get good and suitable staff. I am concerned that we may create some administrative and expensive monster that actually prevents in-house services competing with external companies. This is a very political issue whether we like it or not.

This registration process must go through public consultation; it is not yet set in stone. This is a fundamental part of the process of HPC registering a new occupation. If you feel you have any issues or comments my advice is to engage in the process and contact the DoH and HPC, the Engineering Council, your union or the IEE or any other body you may be a member of and make them aware of any concerns you have. You could copy the comments made here and forward them on.

I hope that you find these points useful and that you all enjoy and join the debate directly and get involved in the consultation with the HPC and DoH and contact your representative organisations such as unions etc. This is a very challenging issue.

Interesting post. To pick up on a couple of points whilst cogitating on the rest, Amicus is MSF and I believe that the IEE are co-supporters of the VRCT.

Bravo Dr. Kevin! At long last we have some clues to the answers that have often been asked on this website, and in other forums. Many of us agree that we are engineers, not clinicians (we have, after all, engineering qualifications, not clinical ones). And yet some unseen hand (people I have met refer somewhat vaguely to new “government rules”) is bullying us into meekly resigning themselves to the fact that “registration is inevitable”.

So, what about the non-NHS service people? Some of these guys work for private companies resident in NHS hospitals. What about agency engineers working in EBME workshops – do have “have to” register in order to work, or are they classed as non-NHS?

Come on Brothers, if these people cannot answer the questions, let’s kick it out!

Is that the IEE or the IIE?

Thankyou Techman for the details regarding AMICUS. All our staff are members of UNISON, who were not represented at the meeting. I have updated my original post to reflect your point.

However, I talked to the staff of the IEE Policy Unit, personally, and they were unaware of the registration details, even if they had at some time been co-supporters as you suggest. The IEE will bring this up at the next Healthcare Technologies Network Executive Meeting.

I do think it is interesting to compare the IEE site with that of IPEM.

I also feel that it is vital we consider this concept of registration with the necessary rigour that would be required for any national and international registration process. There are legal and commercial implications for european and international companies etc.

Kevin

Well said Dr K, Who's idea was this anyway? I am already regulated as an engineer by the Engineering Council, I am not a 'Technologist'and do not match their job discription i'm a Medical Engineer ,What is this all about?,Do we just sit here and let it all happen with no input or consultation.

Hi Dr Kev and hopefully just answering Bob on his post.

The main reason I see that the IEE have never heard of this regulation is primarily because. The VRCT is adminstrated by the IPEM in partnership with the Association of Renal Technologists, and the wait for it Institution of Incorporated Engineers.(Yes read from the certificate I know.) Anyway so no wonder the IEE have never heard of it.

As I see it, the VRCT is good, growing and of beneficial to others. And not to be mocked by someone who Dr or not, a man of his level should have his credits right before quoting these words.

Dr Kev please dont take this the wrong way just an observation.

Regards and Huw keep up the good work.

Jeff T

Unless registration is mandatory I would have thought an external company’s decision to register employees would be if engineering degrees were still a permitted entry route or if not whether the clinical technologist degrees were approved by the likes of the IEE.

Question is what would happen if these courses were not compatible with engineering training programs. At the moment I can only see one clinical technologist degree and it seems to be a more of a physics degree rather than an engineering degree.

I’ve only come to the medical engineering sector recently but I doubt that companies in the medical sector don’t employ similarly and that minimum entry for all employees is a HNC/D or degree. In the previous company I worked for there was various levels of employee from those with just GCSE’s to OND/ONC up to HNC/HND and degree. For some tasks you don’t need a degree to perform them, let alone a HNC/D, while other duties with more responsibility need a higher qualified employee. Now if some do run like this where do you stop the registration? Do they have to have everybody that works on medical equipment registered or just the one’s that visit hospitals? It’s unlikely that all of them could register.

Also like were told on the ads for the beer that's not rushed, it's not ready yet! Comparing VRCT to engineering registration, VRCT doesn't seem to be well thought out. When I was first employed I was informed that something would have to be done about VRCT. Now the state registration is approaching it looks like there's still nothing I can do about it. I’ve ask if the training route is available but it doesn’t look likely there’s one implemented. I'm hoping that I can register in just over two years time, but I get the idea that when I can register someone will come along pull the rug out from under me by putting yet another obstacle in my path.

What would improve things would be if there was some sort of preliminary registration for those that don’t yet meet the experience required, like stage 1 of the engineering council registers. I feel that the both train programs and the education requirements should be fully laid down before the grandparenting provision is closed.

Kevin,
I totally agree with you that the stakeholder involvement appears flawed. Our technicians/engineers have registered (including myself) as we thought the hoops are easier to jump through earlier in the process. I don't think there has been enough 'joined up' thinking on how it will affect retention in the NHS. If manufacturers have to use registered technicians/engineers, where is the first place they will look?

Well put Kevin. Personally I am primarily an engineer - but one who is involved with medical equipment. Of course I need an understanding of the application and risks involved - but this is no different to any other application of engineering. Whilst I support and encourage professional registration and CPD with appropriate institutions but are those of us mainly involved with repair and maintenance really a unique profession of Clinical Technologists. I'd like to see the evidence which supports the basis that we are such a risk to patients that we need mandatory registration as Clinical Technologists.
Graham Barnes (CEng MIEE)

Dear Kevin

You are right that the HPA became IPSM, but I must correct you on one point. IPSM merged with the Biological Engineering Society (BES) to form IPEM. IPEM has a strong engineering branch represented by the Engineering Group Board (EGB) and can award CEng status in line with Engineering Council guidelines.

In the BES days, there was a strong link between BES and the IEE, I am sure that continues now with IPEM.

Back to your original point, why are we registering Clinical Technologists. Because the work that they do can have an impact on patient care and safety. I note that you are registered as a Clinical Scientist with HPC (CS3597).

Let me ask you a question, why is it ok for Clinical Scientists to be registered with the HPC and not Clinical Technologists?

I have just read your website, on your point about glass ceilings especially within Medical Physics department. There are many departments with HoD who are engineers, if you take the time to research you will find the following engineers who are also Head of Medical Physics,

Our friend Alex who is Head of Physics at Dewsbury
Dr Chris Callicott, Head of Physics at Bradford
Dr Andy Nevil, Head of Physics at Plymouth
Dr Stuart Meldrum, Head of Physics at Norwich
Ian Eversden, Head of Physics at St George's
I'm sure there are others.

Only last week the IPEM green sheets are advertising two C Grade Clinical Engineering posts at Staffordshire and Addenbrooke's

I have been trying to compile a list of who could be affected by registration in another topic. It is quite clear that whatever guise we come under there is no course that could encompass all of our job descriptions. So I feel that this type of regulation cannot move forward on its present format. This would be due to the opt out clauses that would be needed. Numerous splinter groups that will be formed, causing regulation to be a farce.
If the regulation route must be taken, and a register must be formed, perhaps everyone should be entitled to join and people only removed if there work is not up to standard. E.g. mistakes or poor errors in judgement. Therefore maintaining patient safety and quality regulation.

Clinical Scientists can have dual registration both as Clinical Scientists and Engineers (most Physics Graduates working in Clinical Engineering seem to aspire to becoming Chartered Engineers). But nowadays it is not so easy for fully qualified Engineers, working in healthcare, to achieve this as a result of the Clinical Scientist registration/regulation process and the fact that Medical Physics Departments do not seem to favour Engineers (read as Engineering Graduates) actually being trained and subsequently employed as Clinical Engineers. Shame that those Engineers who are employed in EBME and Medical Physics on grades other than Clinical Scientist grades will remain classified as Technologists despite their qualifications and experience. You could say one result of regulation is that it will continue to keep fully qualified registered Engineers, actually trained and qualified to a high level in Engineering, out of the Clinical Engineering Profession in which training and selection is dominated by Clinical Scientists.

Dear Bioman,

Thank you for your information as to why the name was changed from IPSM to IPEM.

These are good points. However, on the whole many people including myself recognize a divide, as described; between engineering and medical physics based departments and many do not fit the medical physics department model with a medical engineering section or sub department. Many colleagues including myself have felt the glass ceiling that occurs within medical physics based departments - This is my personal experience! I would indeed like to know the percentage of medical physics departments that are headed by engineers. If you have any more detailed information please let me know.

Regarding research into this subject, I am only one person representing a single point of view. This is my concern i.e. that I do not have enough information and there is no overview or picture of medical engineering and how this registration will effect on the industry (including the NHS). I have yet to see any impact studies etc of this proposed registration which I feel should be considered essential when we consider the size and scope of what is being presented.

A major part of engineering is its relationship to the commercial sector including maintenance, servicing and production, costs charges and the business model used etc. It is in this area that I feel the IEE is very strong in. Regarding engineering credentials, the choice of which institution to join etc is a personal preference. I, personally, feel far more comfortable with the IEE due to their long history. However, I am sure that many are happy with IPEM and I also have enjoyed contributing and attending IPEM meetings etc where they have applied. I have no criticisms of IPEM; I simply prefer the IEE and personally feel that it is more relevant for me.

Interestingly, state registration does not mean that you have to be a member of any institution. Once you are state registered, the CPD which is required to maintain ones registration is a personal responsibility and there is no prescribed role for these institutions with the HPC.

Regarding my own clinical scientist registration, I felt this was necessary due to the glass ceiling you mentioned. However, in practice, I do feel that it is really only a repeat of my C. Eng registration.

Many thanks for your thoughts


Kevin

Have I got this registration thing right that only NHS Clinical Technologists / Engineers have to be registered or do all Clinical Technologists / Engineers who work on medical equipment need to be registered if/when the mandatory registration arrives. If the former do you think that somebody in the medical industry has bent somebodies ear for the exclusion of the private sector. Does anybody know what the VRCT does for EME engineers? I am registered as an incorporated engineer and get an industry magazine and information on visits to various engineering companies. What do we get from VRCT? not a lot. What would happen if all EME engineers refused to pay the VRCT fees and refused to join the register if / when it became mandatory?

Any ideas/guesses on what the ratio of clinical technolgists:Clinical Scientists will be once all the clinical technologists have registered with the IPEM? I suspect that there will be far more technologists. Will this influence the future direction/focus of IPEM?

Dr Kevin Haylett.
You arque that as electricians and plumbers also can cause harm to patients then the reason for technician registration has not been addressed sufficiently. Does the same argument not apply to all healthcare professions ie why regulate doctors and nurses.

Why not regulate the whole world? Does technicians/engineers only cause harm inside healthcare? I don't think so.

Spot on Chris & Ken, was,nt Shipman registered ??
Splendid safeguard for his patients !! I don,t Think.

I don't know if this answers Tudor's post, it was explained to me a long time back, that companies who provide a service within an NHS establishment would need to have their tech's registered, i.e service engineers visiting hospitals or third party M.S.V. types based in a hospital.

If you work for a company, based at their own premises you would not need to be registered.

Don't know if this is true but it was a point put across by the Personnel Dept when I worked for one of those nasty M.S.V. companies.

My problem with this whole scenario relates to the Medical Physics / Medical Engineering thing.

I'm a Medical Engineer, work in Medical Engineering (EBME as we call it), and do not consider myself of having any links with Medical Physics.

I've done this for the past 16 years and it works for my liking, and it is also the normal practice in the area where I live.

I know there are associations the length and breadth of the UK where Med Phys and EBME are closely linked and everything is rosey in their garden.

I think the two jobs are different, the problem is that it is seen that somewhere in the food chain Medical Engineers must have a Clinical Scientist / Physicist as their "god".

I don't subscribe to this.

Let Med Phys do their thing and let Biomeds do their thing.

I have no interest in IPEM, don't feel it represents me, only wants to control me.

I don't have a problem with State Registration, if it develops the career of existing Biomeds, provides proper training and development of new and existing staff, limits the access to people proporting to be experienced in the biomed field to starting a position without validation and concentrates on the nature of the work we do.

"Clinical Technologist" is a term that has been developed to meet the "one size fits all" for pidgeon holing as seems to be the norm now in society (you only have to look at AfC, 8 Bands for 1,000,000 people - good fit)

Again a long time back it was put to me that they were thinking of adding suffixs to the registration, SRCT(Biomed)-SRCT(MedPhys)-SRCT(Renal), for example.

Maybe this would aleviate concerns if this was applied.

At least then I would know if I was talking to someone of the same mind-set as myself and if I looked at a training and education path for SRCT(Biomed) then it would be something in my field.

I must admit I took umberance when I first read Kevin's post but with further clarification I can see where he is coming from.

As far as I'm concerned professonal registration is a means of individuals having their achievements and commitment to their profession formally recognised and it's become a qualification in it's own right. Nowadays, for those more interested with doing a job, rather than just collecting paper and titular appreciation, it's also used a means to demonstrate on-going development i.e. CPD.

Professional registration, particularly now institutions accept a very broad range of members and registrants (albeit highly qualified, whether they be CEng, IEng or EngTech), is not necesarily an indicator of whether registrants are competent in specific roles e.g. Technologist in my opinion; unless it is used in conjunction with the the regulation process. I do see advertisements for jobs in the NHS that actually require IPEM registered Clinical Scientists but registration infers that they are fully trained and competent because of regulation, not in spite of it. I do not see a link at the moment between the IEE registration and the regulation of Technologists.

My thinking is that just because I'm registered as an Engineer doesn't necessarily mean I'm suitable or competent to carry out the specific job role I'm actually employed to do. All those posting here mustn't forget that we're not all managing departments - we need hands-on skills and background knowledge that's reflected in the qualifications. An IEE Registered Engineer may be too broad a qualification - fine for Engineering managers or TEchnicians employed in general Engineering but not necessarily a good indicator of specific knowledge or competence in Clinical TEchnology unless used in conjunction with regulation that sets standards for trianing, competences, etc. Registration as a professional in a regulated job-role should not be possible unless specific competences can be demonstrated. Regulation is the framework to ensure this in my opinion whether it is twisted by national and local agenda or not.

Dear Mr Ling,

I think you may be right, ie that competency and registration are separate. This is an important point. How should we assess competency? What does registration really mean? I feel these are important and interesting questions.

Having gone through both registration schemes C.Eng and Clinical Scientist – I felt they were remarkably similar.

I think it is of note that many EBME departments have invested in running ISO 9001 quality systems. Interestingly, competency assessment is an integral part of the ISO 9001 standard. Maybe the use of this standard would be a better way forward, as it is externally audited and has been widely accepted both commercially and in the NHS.

Regarding the IEE and registration of clinical technologists, this is just one of the stakeholder bodies. The IEE have been involved in many of the major standards regarding electro-medical equipment and I, personally, feel they may be able to contribute to this process. I feel that maintenance does relate for example to how equipment is designed. For example, there are many issues to do with self testing, user pre-use tests, the quality of manuals etc that I feel still need addressing. Maybe, device standards should incorporate more elements to do with maintenance and servicing etc. This is where I think the IEE can contribute.


Kevin

The point I'm making is that now C.S. role is regulated as a recognised profession you will have to go through the appropriate training route, knowledge and competancy based assessments or at least prove that you meet these requirements for C.S. registration. Not all IEE registered Engineers would be automatically eligible for C.S. registration so the link between registration as an Engineer and suitability for being a registered C.S. is tenuous I think.

The registration for CEng would not necessarily include the same criteria for inclusion as those for C.S. in terms of specialised knowledge required in a job role, employed as a C.S. The registration process is obviously similar but I suspect the requirements for registration are different. The point is that the necessary requirements to join a profession are what's regulated - registration should reflect that an individual meets these requirements and the employer, the state, sets the requirements and provides the framework for ensuring registrants meet them.

Different professions obviously place different requirements on professinals and a need to register with the professional body that actually regulates the profession. The IEE does not intend to regulate clinical technologists as far as I'm aware so what will registration with the IEE bring for Technologists regulated by the HPC?

R. J. Ling MIEE.

Dear Mr Ling

I agree again. CEng and Clinical Scientist are not the same and your point can also be made the other way not all registered Clinical Scientists will be able to be registered as a C.Eng..

I have not suggested that the IEE act as the regulation body for 'Clinical Technologists'.

I am unaware of any profession called 'clinical technologists' and I feel this proposed registration needs wider debate and consultation through the appropriate channels to determine exactly what is required and by whom i.e. with the DoH and the HPC - as discussed in my original post.

Best regards

Kevin

That's probably true up to a point Kevin; although it is more likely that C.S. registrants are in a better position to register for C.Eng registration since IPEM actively actively promote this for those C.S. employed in Clinical Engineering. The IEE neither promotes Engineers being registered as C.S. or gets involved directly in the regulation the C.S. profession as far as I'm aware (and I too receive the literature from the IEE).

Actually, as far as the promotion of registration for Technicains and regulation goes, I think it's only relatively recently that the IPEM and the IEE have been in a position to confer CEng, IEng and Eng Tech registration. Before then the majority of Technicians would not have been able to register with the IEE or IPEM as IEng or EngTech - except with the IIE. Should registration with the IIE not be more relevant to medical engineering since I guess there are lots of technicians in EBME registered with this institution?

We can discuss which registration and which institution is best until the cows come home but what's required is one of them to introduce a scheme such as the C.S. scheme where clincial engineering technicians (or technoclogists) have a professional stake in the system.

And I've not suggested they shouldn't, it's just a fact they have not publicised an intention to push for regulation and IPEM have; it seems IPEMs agenda is to push for this - the institute is concerned with Engineering in medicine when all's said and done. They have proposed that the HPC regulate the profession and IPEM will be involved in the process. I believe the group that are likely to be regulated will be called clinical technologists within which the HPC proposes we (employed as Technicians) will be part of.

I do agree with you that there needs to be further consultation on this issue and that we should not just let our employer and professional institutions forge ahead without involving the workforce in the debate.

For those who are worried about the academic requirements for registration and the fact that they do not seem to be taking practical experience in to account,here is a quote from the IPEM web site in the VRCT section:

"We require to develop processes to accredit prior experience and learning which will count towards the acquisition of a Clinical Technology degree.

"The education providers have indicated that it is entirely feasible to introduce such processes. Thus those wishing to join the profession who have HNC/HND or equivalent will be able to acquire a Clinical Technology degree in a reasonable time scale. This will be achieved through the accreditation of prior and experiential learning, and the acquisition of additional educational modules and workplace training.

"(Note: This means that we will continue to attract into the profession those holding HNC/HND/equivalent qualifications or specialist practical skills. It also ensures that, in the future, all entering the profession will be guaranteed structured, competence-based education and training which is independently assessed.)"

What I read from this is that it will be necessary to have a degree but the infrastructure to provide you with it, taking in to account previous knowledge and experience, needs to be put in place. They acknowledge it does not exists at present. They lso say that people without the required degree can still come in to the profession and be trained up.

Am I reading this right? You may want to read it in contxt with the rest of the article - see the IPEM web site front page news.
Robert

Sorry Robert, but I just can't resist chiming-in with my usual four points:-

1) We are not “clinical technologists”. We are engineering technicians.

2) At the end of the day the work still has to be done.

3) There will always be work for those willing to actually work.

4) Don't worry, be happy!

I think the argument about higher qualifications being necessary to meet the requirements for future regulation, for Technicians who're currently employed in EBME/Medical physics equipment maintenance specifically, is a red-herring and a bit of a waste of time. Membership of a professional institution is not even up for argument, really, since the IPEM is likely to be the institute that's involved with HPC regulation. Hence it's likely that if a post requires the incumbent to be registered then registration through IPEM will, most likely, be necessary.

Personally I don't think the academic standards of the VRCT (HNC) are particularly stringent considering the technical nature of the work we do so I wonder what the mean level of education and experience actually is out there. My opinion is that employers have been circumventing the requirements of Whitley for years, employing individuals in highly responsible grades, with a requirement for less experience and qualifications, because of high demand in certain locations (and job-roles) and this leaves the workforce in a difficult position nowadays.

Many of us realised a while back that if we met the requirements for the VRCT and regulation was going to be brought in for Technicians like it had for Scientists that it made sense to join the VRCT (for the sake of a tenner and sending of a CV and a covering letter). In any case, as many now realise, that regulation and these sort of things are usually pushed through by a minority, whether we like it or not, and seeing as we were told way back that being on the VRCT would make transferring onto the register easier then it made sense to others and myself; insurance if you like. Especially attractive if being involved in the regulation process meant retaining future job mobility, the possiblity of a proper career structure, training and CPD.

I wouldn't have thought anybody in the job, in the know so to speak, with a HNC/HND, is particularly bothered about meeting the future academic requirements for regulation since we are told, again and again, that there will be a grandfather clause for those already in-post. These individuals should still be able to meet the requirements of the VRCT if they have relevent experience working in healthcare. However I don't think the Grandfather clause can, should, or will necessarily be applied across the board for those in-post.

I think the argument, against regulation, the HPC, IPEM and VRCT, is predominantly from those that cannot meet the requirements of the VRCT - broady speaking from two groups: 1). those that just don't have the appropriate training and experience currently doing the job irrespective of the grade and academic qualifications they currently have and 2). those individuals that haven't joined the VRCT, or still can't join the VRCT, because their qualifications do not meet the basic requirements laid down by the VRCT.

Unfortunately for new starters I think that it always takes time to learn the relevent skills and pick up practical experience when moving into a new job, irrespective of prior, generic, engineering knowledge or practical skills. I'm not sure that a Grandfather clause should apply in this case since a paper qualification is not the issue here - skills and experience still need to be obtained before they are on-par with fully skilled individuals (whatever the level of academic qualification the skilled & experienced individuals have).

The other issue is about the relatively low-level of qualifications that employers have been willing to accept to fill posts on MTO3 and above, particularly, up until recently; that's down to individual employers circumventing Whitley agreements for years and compromising employees by failing to provide support for training/career progression. I think this had led to there being a significant number of us that have further qualifications rather than higher qualifications. In my opinion this is the issue that really needs to be addressed when considering transfer onto a state register - there should be a Grandfather clause that accepts individuals with the training, experience and skills in the job, irrespective of the level of qualification deemed acceptable in the past by employers.

If it's just about individuals that simply don't meet basic requirements or that can't be bothered with the application process just because they're in-post but wanting to transfer with individuals that do meet the requirements of the VRCT and that have applied then I don't think they should transfer - they should apply for registration when/if their employer deems it necessary.

The apparent lack of interest from employers and institutions in involving the whole of the workforce has not helped at all in publicising the issues around regulation. Personally I think, like most schemes thought up by this Government, that regulation will go ahead; so it's up to the employers, professional institutions and the Government to ensure that those in-post come regulation are not compromised. Individuals that do not meet any of the requirements of registration should be fully supported in achieving this aim or be registered under the Grandfather clause if the support is not there.

Unfortunately, speaking from personal and others' experiences, I think the divide in could actually be between Medical Physics and EBME; where the tendency in larger Medical Physics departments is to provide more formalised training and require slightly higher levels of qualifictions at the working grade i.e MTO3 (and be more aware of regualtion perhaps) and EBME where it seems, to me, that individuals can obtain higher grades irrespective of academic qualifications, training and experience; in comparison to those carrying out similar job roles in Medical Physics departments on lower grades.

I just wonder whether employers will insist on employing Clinical Technologists i.e. employing registered employees. If it's possible then I think they might start a two-tier system where some individuals carrying out certain roles in equipment maintenance are required to be state registered and others are not; in an attempt to save money on maintenance.

Let's get this thread back into play, especially as many of the posts are well-reasoned and worth reviewing. Who knows, perhaps we'll even get an update!

I have a question about the VRCT, in connection with IPEM and the title of C.S.

If the IET (as is now) are part of the consortium along with IPEM who are administrating the VRCT, why do they not just do away with the VRCT and call it the EngTech level of entry!

As someone who work in a company, feels that regulation is a good thing, and actually aspires to one day gain Ieng status,
Is it not that, the word Clinical should be replaced with Medical.
To read IPEMs summary of what is required to gain Ceng you would have needed to work with every piece of equipment in the hospital!
I feel that the IET and the guidelines set down by UK-SPEC are not as tight as those set down by IPEM.

I think the level of registration associated with registered "Clinical Technologists" (included on the VRCT) who are members of IPEM (IIPEM Membership Grade) is IEng not EngTech.

IEng is concurrent with IIPEM and at the appropriate level for Clincial Technologist roles.

If HPC registration comes along then anyone with the title Clinical Technologist is most likely to have the incorporated (IIPEM) membership grade and IEng registration via IPEM or IET (not forgetting ART and SCCT) having demonstrated they are fully qualified in their scope of practice (the type of job they do). Hence they will be HPC registered.

CEng is an appropriate level of registration for Clinical Scientists and Engineers in healthcare that have postgraduate level qualifications and experience in R&D plus management.

It's for professional managers, professional Scientists and Engineers with Membership (MIPEM) Grade. CEng is concurrent with MIPEM and at the appropriate level for Clincial Scientist roles.

I suppose the title "healthcare technologist" could be used instead of "Clinical Technologist" but what's in a name? It's not what you're called but what's required to make individuals eligible to use that title.

The HPC is still likely to insist on degree-level entry and a scope of practice that's appropriate for the job we do and one that's clinically/medically/healthcare biased, irrespective.

I hope I can be forgiven for quoting from my own earlier post!

What I would support is something along the lines of the Certification programmes that the United States has. Certified Biomedical Engineering Technician (CBET) for general biomeds, with similar programmes for techs specialising in either laboratory equipment or imaging (x-ray kit etc.). You have to sit (and pass) an examination, and (for those who haven't seen them) the questions are quite tough! Why can't we have something like that in the UK?

Now now Geoff, modern Britain setting examinations that candidates could actually FAIL!!!

That would never do; it would mean that people would have to reach set standards before collecting their modern qualifications.

I grew up when if you were no good or did not bother then you failed. Now as long as you turn up, you pass. Still it allows our colleges to boast 98% pass rates. I always wonder what happened to the other 2%, perhaps they thought it all a joke.

Barney

You took the words out of my mouth Barney (and even typed them for me! )

I hear you, Barney. What's the point of having a Register if you don't have to pass some sort of test (series of tests, exams, so many years of experience ... whatever) to get on it? As I say, I would go for the CBET approach. Something meaningful. If you fail, you just have to try a bit harder next time. Just like real life, in fact. That needs to be Lesson No.1.

Meanwhile, check out Biomed Rx and AAMI. We have nothing like this is in the UK (or Europe?).

Hi Geoff,

Notice how Clincial Technologist is in inverted commas. Personally I don't care what the name is - it's the scope of practice and what's required of the training, prior experience and learning, needed to get you there - not just an exam.

It's no longer possible to get onto the VRCT without the necessary evidence of prior learning, experience and academic achievement - isn't this what many on this site have complained about - the too-high standards that VRCT sets?

Considering we're always discussing the flaws in "paper" qualifications I'm surprised you're applauding a certification scheme that's based upon a written examination!

Surely, like VRCT, the BMET scheme must also have some minimum requirements for hands-on skills, experience, qualifications and the examinee be working in healthcare to be eligible?

Is this not what has been argued about degree qualified individuals RE: VRCT in the past having "paper" qualifications?

If there's no such requirement then is it possible that someone without any experience and a good memory could just turn up after reading the blaggers guide to BMET and pass?

I believe there's more to biomed Certification than "just" the exam. I'm not sure about eligibility, but seem to recall that the exam questions themselves are not really what you might call trivial. It's serious stuff, and includes a "fault finding" section. Hopefully, some techs from the US can provide us with the details.

Yes that's true - I was just arguing the point. In fact I'd prefer a more objective scheme that is knowledge and skills biased. Generic knowledge and skills rather than too academically biased.

What we have to remember is that training, registration and certification for individuals working in engineering in healthcare, whether they're technicians or engineers, in the UK, is in its infancy.

Is the intention of BMET to prevent untrained, unskilled and uninsured individuals from working in medical engineering? If it is then I guess that HPC regulation is intended to work along the same lines.

Perhaps we should look towards BMET as a source of ideas for assessing the technical/clinical knowledge and skills of trainees in the UK then. Thanks for the idea.

Taken from the AAMI ICC FAQ:

... there you are, then. Sounds about right doesn't it? So why don't we adopt it in the UK (maybe somebody already has)?

years of experience falls foul of the age discrimination legislation, and rightly so. We all know people that can spend 4 years doing a job and learn absolutely nothing, and others that can pick things up in weeks.
The best test of a technicians ability is a broken piece of kit with or without circuit diagrams, so what we need is a company to produce these as a test kit (shouldn't be too difficult as lots of companies have significant experience in producing kit that doesn't work)

I have been looking at professional registration for my qualifications (fancied some letters after my name)- however some of the institutes i have had a look just seem to be a scam, give us £100 and you can use these letters. Don't know what anybody thinks but your views would be interesting to hear.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Bring on the Alzheimers, a world to yourself & revenge on your kids! Frank Gallagher, 2005.

After many years paying IPEM for some of those letters I've decided that I haven't seen any real benefit so I'll save my money.
And before anybody says "but you can claim the money back from the Tax man", I don't currently have to fill in a self assessment form and I have no wish to change!

Lee

Age isn't relevant since we're considering the duration of training, i.e. the possession of skills, training and qualifications over a defined period, to be eligible for taking additional qualifications; not the age of the individual undertaking training. If eligibility to apply for a qualification related to a job does not have any age limits the legislation does not apply.

What is perfectly legal is for an employer to require certain qualifications, skills and experience, and assessing this objectively at selection. We are discussing the ability to do a job based on the training individuals do not their age.

Practical tests are a good idea but isn't that what the on the job training and hands-on experience under supervision is about? Real-world problems that add to trainees experience whilst allowing them to learn. The fact that individuals do not necessarily learn at the same rate is well known. But this is not just the trainees problem it's up to trainers to address this.

As for registration, etc, I look at it like this: If I lost my job next year and was looking for another and it required VRCT (as many do nowadays) and I've kicked it into touch then I'd have to apply again and go through an interview for the sake of £10 a year.

In five years, if I want to move onwards and upwards and a job opprtunity presents itself but it's HPC registered as a "Clinical Technologist" and I'm not an IPEM/IET/ART/SCCT member thus not registered under HPC and it's a requirement - what do I do?

A small point, but I was under impression that membership of IPEM et al is not a requisite for VRCT or (when it happens) HPC.

Membership of a professional institution isn't required for the VRCT but membership is most likely to be necessary to enable individuals to demonstrate they meet the requirments laid down in the scopes of practice; thus enable individuals to obtain registration via the HPC, if they're' not on the VRCT.

For example holders of the IPEM post-nominals IIPEM are recognised by the institute as being "fully qualified technologists" eligible for entry onto the VRCT and, I assume, for transfer over to the prospective HPC register, if it ever materialises.

I'm with you there, Paul. But if we are to have some sort of Register, Licensing, or whatever (and opinions vary considerably on this point, as we all know), then I would have thought that a US-style Biomed Certification scheme is the way to go. Then, if a tech is Certified, everyone knows what standard the guy has achieved.

Conversely (as I have argued before), Voluntary Registration is not the way to go.

I agree Geoff, it should be compulsory.

But The VRTC has no provision for profile based evidence(I don’t think that showing you certs. was a true assessment), or review of CDP, where as, IPEM which are an administering body, do.


---------------------------------------------------------------
I had to fill a tax form in once after enquiring about self employment!no wonder so many firms go under in the first year!!

When I applied to be included on the VRCT I had to give evidence of so many years working in healthcare, relevant training, my qualifications, experience, an organisational structure chart of where I worked. This had to be confirmed by a proposer and seconder, I think, one had to have IIPEM status, the other my manager. Since then the requirements have been relaxed somewhat, it appears. There's a statement on the VRCT certificate, if I remember correctly, referring to maintaining levels of competence and suchlike. IPEM also provides stuff on CPD, etc.

Without VRCT I think there would be more individuals who'd have difficulty getting onto the HPC in the future because they don't currently possess a relevant degree for instance and I think that is the level of qualification expected nowadays. However VRCT will probably enable the individuals with relevant and proven experience/skills/qualifications onto the HPC register, if and when it comes along, without them having to jump through the same "hoops" as new starters.

The big potential benefit of registration is that training and a career structure that's based on skills/knowledge/qualifications and experience will determine who gets the senior job roles based on ability. Preventing those who don't really have all the necessary skills from learning them whilst they're being employed in a well paid and responsible role, thus putting others at risk, potentially, and giving those who go to the trouble of training for a career a decent crack at the whip, so to speak.

Of course this "vision" relies upon employers taking up the use of protected titles for its employees and ensuring that they are applied to appropriate grades (NHS employers will have to do this under HPC if the job role is applicable). Training of staff then will become necessary to maintain demand - like it is for Nurses, Physiotherapists, etc. Currently we can't get anyone with the skills we need when we advertise and I wonder sometimes whether individuals, including myself, have the range of skills necessary at the grade they're currently working at.

As you PM is not set to accept, could i ask if it is ok to quote you in an ECA please Richard? and would any other participents in this mind being quoted too?

Sorry Scott whats an ECA? If I've quoted it previously on this site then it's not an issue. Obviously it's possible that my views have changed if it's an old quote, or be misrepresentative if it's taken out of context.

Darth,

In response to your question about professional registration there are two ways of looking at it .
1. Is it a requirement of your employment? If it is then you have little choice in the matter. If your employer insists on professional registration it would have been agreed at the highest level that the type of registration is appropriate and has been introduced as a safeguard against malpractice whether deliberate or through incompetence.
2. Are you a “bighead”? If you’re one of those people who (Dennis Norden impressions welcome) like to talk a lot or want to tell the world just how good you are then it would be your mission to get as many letters after your name as you can. There are people out there who seem to collect titles whether they are relevant to what they do or not.

In most cases people get registered because they have to. If you are currently employed and do not need to be registered then there is no real need to spend your money. If you are thinking about changing jobs having letters after your name might get you on the shortlist.

This thread is generally concerned with the registration of biomeds working in the NHS as Clinical Technologists. I assume that you are a biomed working for the MOD, are you and your colleagues aware of the VRCT? If so what are your thoughts about it? Should it apply to biomeds working for the armed forces?

The VRCT doesn't have letters or a title associated with it but I do notice that almost every NHS medical engineering job I now see advertised wants individuals to be a position to achieve it.

De-facto it is becoming a qualification, or at least recognition of achievement or ability, that's of value to employers, even if it isn't to prospective employees. I think the question should be:

Do physiotherapists and other professions regulated by the HPC currently work in the MOD in the UK or UK military hospitals abroad? Is it necessary for them to be registered?

Auf Wiedersehen.

ECA -End of Course Assignment, i would never take things out of context just use it to back up a view point.

Bill, if you are currently employed by a company(or the MOD) but feel that the M6(insert any other place of your choosing) will one day will one day be the end of you, registering now (or previous) will or would have been a sensible thing to do, as by that time the hospital jobs will require registration and probably insist on it.

Is it a characteristic of the British (or should I say, more specifically, the English) always to meekly accept the "inevitable"? Could it be something to do with our long association with sheep? Perhaps we need to be a bit more like some other cultures (eg, the French) and be willing to resist a bit more!

In response to Biomedbill - I can guarentee that i am not a "bighead" even though i look like SHREK (Bad Donkey) with a Flat-top, the MOD policy at the moment is that Navy,Army & RAF Medical and Dental technicians do not have to be registered with the VRCT. I think this policy might come in and will cause no end of dramas, we never seem to get it right first time. I belive that registration to the VRCT should be mandatory for all Navy,Army & RAF Medical and Dental technicians and should be done after completion of the course in Arborfield.

The reason i asked about letters after your name is that it seems that the MOD i.e R.E.M.E are pushing (pushing in inverted comas - you will do it) soldiers in this direction, however they are not willing to pay for any registration but expect soldiers to pay themselves.

I totally agree with you on the fact that some people collect letters after their name and i have met a few who i would not trust to wire a plug!

---------------------------------------------------------

I am still not a real welder! Darth Welder

Surely it should need more than that? What about years of experience (ie, on medical and dental kit) as well? That is, actually doing the job!

As I've already said, I believe that a US-style Biomed Certification scheme is the way to go.

Re Geoff's post - It would make sense to register with the VRCT as passing the Med & Dent course shows that you have been trained and shown the ability to be able work on Medical & Dental equipment, however it should be at the lowest level until you have gained experience.

My main concern with the VRCT, is the fact it is voluntary, in my view this is not a proper and reconised professional institution. I like the idea of the US-style Biomed Certification, but i need to find out more about it.

PS John Whalley says hello to you Geoff.

As I have said before, it is administered by IPEM and the IET, who are reconised, once it is adopted will it not just be part of IPEM?

Darth,

On paper, the VRCT looks like a good idea but if you trawl through some of the posts on this site you will find that opinions differ as to its relevance. The VRCT was set up by Medical Physics personnel to suit the quirky arrangements of a typical Physics department. In a typical Physics department there are a number of technicians doing very different jobs. There are “clinical” technicians imaging patients using Gamma Cameras and Ultrasound, “hybrid” technicians who carry out certain physiological tests on patients and also calibrate their own equipment and then there are us, the biomeds. Historically we sprang from the loins of medical physics and over the years the trade (or profession if you prefer) has grown significantly to the extent that there are more biomeds working outside of med physics than in it. In fact you and your colleagues are a prime example, do you have any ties with medical physics or the IPEM?
The IET wrote to the DoH in response to their request for views on the future regulation of healthcare professionals. They asked some very pertinent questions IET response about the scope of the VRCT and raised concerns that it is NHS centric.
We need a more profession specific regulator that will cover all biomeds whether they work in the NHS, Military or private sector.

Not sure why link to website didn't come up properly, if some one wants to correct the entry please feel free.

Done

If you received a VRCT certificate, BB, you would notice the ART, IPEM and IET endorsement at the bottom of the document. IET actually supports VRCT - however there are concerns about how regulation is going to be implemented.

IPEM, ART, IET and any other interested parties have been given the opportunity to formally present their concerns - they all have as far as I'm aware - in fact that is what the consultation process is all about.

Meanwhile it's a fact that the VRCT membership will continue to influence the requirements for new medical engineering vacancies, thus new starters in the NHS, and it is those currently working in the NHS who are most likely to work under the auspices of the HPC (whether we like it or not).

My view is that if it is coming then it is wise to prepare for it. I leave the argument about how and when regulation is going to be implemented to the professional institutions and just voice my own views based on my understanding of what's happening.

A few thousand others and I have made my our own personal decision to include themselves on a voluntary register - if others don't want to be included then that's their choice.

However I think in this day and age, in the NHS at least, there needs to be minimum standards for training, qualifications and experience for those working in healthcare.

Just being registered with ECUK as a technician or engineer is not enough for the job a fully qualified specialist does in the NHS.

IET and ECUK are probably concerned about the loss of engineering dedicated membership to the HPC and other healthcare specific institutions.

Employers in the private sector are probably concerned about the cost and logistics of regulation and so is NHS management, I guess.

How are other professions that are currently regulated under the HPC, regulated in the private and military sectors, e.g. Physiotherapists and Radiographers, for example?

I suspect they are regulated in just the same way. If not then how can they do their job? Only if they don't use protected titles and I expect that their employer will not allow this for the obvious legal reasons - regulation is mandatory.

This is how regulation works - the employer has to consider the implications of regulation if a professional, who's required to be regulated, needs to be employed to meet the requirements to practise, that're laid down in legislation.

(assuming that we are talking about engineering technicians, and not "health scientists", or whatever) Why not? Or, put another way, "only if we allow this to happen"!

Compare the ECUK website with that of the VRCT. Might as well have the HPC in here as well.

Also that of the IET, seeing that you mentioned it, Richard. Plus ART and IPEM.

I'm not sure if Huw will be happy with a link to PACE, but here goes! And how about the SCCT (have I missed any)?

Meanwhile, I would urge all those interested in this topic to take a bit of time out and re-read Kevin Haylett's original post, which is a well-reasoned piece from someone in a position to know what he is talking about!

Small print: for the record I have no affiliation with any of these organisations myself, but simply remain an advocate of "balancing the argument"!

The bottom line is that an individual who has EngTech, IEng or CEng registration but who's been working in another field of engineering, e.g. avionics repair, is not necessarily capable of moving into a job in medical engineering as being fully qualified and carry out that role from day-one.

VRCT is about the requirements for someone to be considered fully qualified not preventing individuals from coming into the profession at the appropriate level for their current knowledge, skills and experience.

Perhaps VRCT is becoming more effective as a means of preventing, and, hopefully HPC regulation will be totally effective in preventing, the fairly common practice (in the past up until fairly recently) of employing individuals from areas other than medical engineering in senior roles in the NHS, in jobs they have to effectively train, on the job, to do.

This is a ridiculous situtation - especially since there's no formal training or national standards that currently apply for new-starters. Regulation will hopefully ensure that formal education and training in the NHS is undertaken, along with the introduction of national training schemes to meet the demand; like has happened in other recently regulated professions.

The "bums on seats, anyone with an HNC will do as a senior technician" scenario has been happening for years, despite the Whitley requirements for technician experience, etc, that were generally ignored, because of demand and it is unsatisfactory that individuals should work in responsible positions without the necessary skills, qualifications and experience before they start in a new job working in a role that's unfamiliar.

As for ECUK registered technicians who have these skills or are already in post then I don't see that any of the arguments apply since they're already in post. However the future for them, as i see it, is that if they don't or can't beome registered with HPC if their employer requires it, then moving between jobs and career progression may become difficult - unless there is a means of applying equivalency in skills, experience, qualifications and training, etc.

The arguments against regulation appear to be coming from individuals in post who either don't want to pay, have large chips on their shoulders about being "made to do something" they don't want to do, or just havn't got relatively basic engineering qualifications. Not the sorts who'd be interested in ECUK or BMET, either, I might add.

The "self-defeating" empoyment practices of managers in Medical Physics and EBME departments has meant that the requirement for specialist training and education in medical engineering has been driven down to the point that the job is becoming dumbed-down. The fault lies with NHS management for not ploughing resources into in-house training and this "bums on seats" attitude.

The "dumbing down" aspect is playing right into the hands of AFC and local NHS organisations agendas (including some EBME/Medical Physics managers agendas, no doubt) I might add. Hopefully HPC regulation will ensure that those who are regulated with protected job roles can at least earn a decent living and that individuals can actually aspire to get there after the relevant training and education, in a reasonable amount of time.

I'm fortunate to work in a department where I can honestly say, hand on heart, that most of the senior engineers actually meet the scope of practice for medical engineering technicians laid down in VRCT - whether they're included on the VRCT or not. The organisation has not been "dumbed-down" yet and this benefits our NHS trust I think. Perhaps when I am "dumbed-down" then I'll see VRCT in a similar light to those who think it's irrelevant.

I cannot understand, Geoff, your attitude as one who's done specialist medical engineering trainig that you would advocate we should let ex-avionics engineers, graduate engineers with no work experience, etc, with some form of ECUK registration loose in a hospital unsupervised, learning on the job with no proper training, either vocational or on the job, or career structure in place - relying on their colleagues to keep an eye out for them.

Bearing in mind that I was subscribed onto IEE automatically as a gradute student, promoted to AMIEE when I completed my IEE accredited honours degree and then to MIEE without requesting it thus I was eligible to apply for IEng/CEng if I wished. All this without having to pass one exam or indicate my specialist knowledge, skills or experience in medical engineering, for the role I work in.

What sort of regulation is that? No better than a voluntary register in my opinion. Certainly worse than mandatory regulation if it's intended to ensure that I don't present a risk to the public.

Irrespective of your qualifications if you're in post working in medical engineering and you have the experience, knowledge and skills the VRCT is not a problem - individuals already in post are not the problem - it's new starters who have no specialist knowledge or experience that present risk.

An avionics engineer has no more specialist knowledge in medical engineering than a newly qualified electronic engineering graduate in my opinion. They would both need additional training and experience to meet the VRCT requirements, irrespective of qualifications or non-relevant experience or whether they're registered with ECUK. ECUK is about maintaining standards - HPC regulation is about legislation that is intended to protect patients.

Seems to me that individuals coming into medical engineering with no prior relevant training and experience want to be able to change careers, move into a top-job, whilst earning top-dollar, with (or without) retraining on the job. Ridiculous expectations in my opinion.

Perhaps Kevin Haylett subscribes to keeping individuals "dumbed-down" thus regulation, i.e. the requirements to achieve it, is irrelevant? As a registered Clinical Scientist (manager), i.e. regulated as a Scientist working in medicine, rather than a technician on the bench, Kevin Haylett is entitled to his own personal opinions and professional agendas.

You obviously don't know me very well, Richard ... I'm against idiots in whatever shape or form!

Should we start our own Biomed Club, then (... yet another one to add to the list)?

One professional institution and one regulating body, if they are necessary, would be enough for me, in an ideal world. I feel that, given the circumstances, i.e. lack of relevant qualifications, training, dodgy recruitment practices, high demand for skilled individuals, problems with the career structure and lack of opportunities for progression; something is required to improve the situation. I doubt another club will do this.

What, you mean... BANTER ?

There, that should be enough smileys(!)....

H'mmm. Not sure if the B would stand for biomed or BS, though.

On second thoughts it might need to be called HOMER (for Hands-On Medical Equipment Repairers). At least that way it would be clear what it was all about!

And doesn't the guy just have the look of an old biomed about him?

I could not agree more, but i thought you meant this Homer ;0))

You can choose either model, Scott ... whichever you feel most applicable. Homer Simpson certainly has many of the characteristics often found in biomed techs, I'll agree (perhaps we need a poll)!

Could this be the new club, I wonder?

Keep wondering Geoff.

I know it's Geoff's job to reawaken old posts (Age?) but I would like to rekindle this post in light of the "Modernising Healthcare Scientists careers" paper which was put out to consultation last month. Forget about the VRCT for the moment, I'd like to ask the question, do you consider yourself a healthcare scientist or not?

No.

I fix equipment, manage the equipment Library and hand out advice mostly.

Technical yes, healthcare yes, scientific not very often.

Lee

It's not really important whether you consider yourself a healthcare scientist, the issue is what the DOH considers you to be; and if you work in EBME or any similar discipline then you'll be amongst the ranks of Healthcare scientists. This almost certainly means you will be required to register as a "Healthcare Science Practitioner" if you are band 5 or 6 (possibly 7) or as a "Healthcare Scientist" if on a higher grade.
There are quite a few good points to the HCS proposals (training and funding for it) but there are also bad points like no direct transfer route from practitioner to scientist meaning good practitioners that want to progress have to leave the post they're in to go on a three year (paid) training scheme that may result in a new job the other end of the country.

Personally I consider myself as a healthcare scientist because it pays more

Absolutely not, Bill (and thanks for the acknowledgment).

As I may have said before (?), the traditional (and, to my mind, correct) terminology for what most of us do is Engineering Technician (or, perhaps, Technician Engineer). This is regardless of what Ministry goons dream up. Meanwhile, what terminology does the Engineering Council use these days?

Would you be able to direct me to a link, please, where I can read a bit more about these DOH proposals? I've heard they want to call us Healthcare Scientists, but Science Practitioner is new to me. I agree with Geoff, by the way, regarding the blurring of distinctions between engineers, scientists and technicians.

The consultation document is available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_091137

It is almost certain that these proposals will come into force in some form and at this stage the best we can hope for is minor changes to the worst areas. (this appears to be mainly driven by the DoH desire to reverse the affect that AFC had on pathology grading structures) If you are in Unite/Amicus then contact your local rep as the union has been holding information/study days about this and they should welcome input.
(Out of the ~55,000 NHS staff affected by this ~38,000 are Unite members with relatively few staff represented by other unions)

Indeed. So, eighteen months or so later ... what's the latest on all this?

"Modernising Scientific Careers" is starting the implementation phase with quite a few early implementer Trusts scattered about. No great thought seems to have gone into equipment management as yet since all the effort is going into "re-profiling" (for which read major down grading) of the pathology workforce. However once pathology have been well and truly seen to, no doubt, all eyes will turn to us.