EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues VRCT renewal

Thank you for that summary, Richard. Nothing that I didn’t already know, of course, but it was better coming from you rather than from an outsider such as myself.

We have had the conversation about ageing departments just recently, and the issue of bringing on the new blood is one that interests me greatly.

(I can only repeat what I said in a post a couple of years ago …) I still believe that the key is the technician, and by that I mean the quality and calibre of technical manpower in the form of engineering technicians, and also that in-house EBME technicians are not only maintainers and repairers of equipment, but are also of necessity trainers and managers as well! That’s where the money needs to be spent – in attracting good people, training them properly, “bringing them on” (with us old 'uns as the mentors), offering them a decent career structure and then retaining them. We need new blood - young, fertile minds!

Perhaps I should have added, … regardless of job titles or subscriptions to a list of names on a piece of paper!

Yes, as you may imagine, the “young, fertile minds” bit has become a bit of a catch-phrase, and has generated a degree of banter when I’ve visited a few departments since then, but it remains my fervent wish that any youngster coming to work in biomed today would feel the same sense of “pride in the trade” that I felt back then (and, to a certain extent, still feel today).

In fact, although it seems that such sentiments are no longer de rigeur in Modern Britain, I (and a few others like me, I’m pleased to say) now jealously guard (and, when necessary, defend) what could be called the “biomed spirit”, and am always inspired when it is occasionally displayed by the younger techs. Eliteist? Damn right, as His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Al-Maktoum (of Dubai) has said “In the race for excellence, there is no finishing line”! How’s that?

No one said everyone will be required to registered - only that protected job titles will be regulated. Those working within the scope of practice will probably be required to be regulated. For example it is unlikely that I will be required to be regulated the way the draft scope of practice is currently written.

As I said I'm not interested in what they call me, regulated, registered, whatever - I doubt many others are either as long as they've got a job they like doing to go to after regulation is introduced.

However there are some out there who love to hang onto every bit of titular appreciation they can get hold of; perhaps it's important to them that they're classed as "Engineers".

I've always thought the term "Engineer" has been used a bit too loosely by "tradesmen" and some "academics", if you want my opinion.

Maybe others wish to be seen as if they're managing "Engineers" rather than "Technicians" or they think a few letters after your name earns you respect.

Incidentally I don't think you've got the monopoly of wanting to do a good job, being good at hands-on or being an intelligent being Geoff.

Technicians don't just appear out of thin air when we need them - they have to be sourced or trained after being selected as having the appropriate attitude and attributes for the job.

My experience is that to the public at large the term Technician rates higher than Engineer.

Yes, Richard ... but how to conjure them up from the Nintendo generation?

And yes, some people have an unfortunate desire to display their "status". Once upon a time, in a place far, far, away ... one of my "Engineers" used to insist that "his" mere "Technician" walked a couple of paces behind and carried both toolkits. Mate, I kid you not! Needless to say, I took a pretty dim view of this sort of thing, and when I heard about it the guy was suitably dealt with (by ridicule, in case you're wondering).

Be Strong ... and Keep the Faith!

Not as highly as the term Celebrity, though, Dicky!

Haven't I made it clear how I think this can be done, considering the "new" generation? Give someone something to aim for, i.e. a "professional" career that they can get something worthwhile out of, e.g qualifications, experience and training, then 1) they might want to apply for the jobs and 2) The training of appropriate numbers of staff, taking into account wastage, might help to ensure that fully trained individuals who are actually interested in doing a good job come through the system.

In my opinion regulation is the only way to introduce a means of providing this since employing staff who are trained to work in particular roles will be mandatory. I say again, if employers don't have to train or develop career structures, they won't - and they'll continue to scratch around for people as a result. Notice the common theme with regulated professions in the NHS these days is actually that the NHS has had too many, in certain occupations, than it could employ in recent years!

If we say for sake of argument that the registration of CT's is passed, how do we get the best new blood through the door? Do we employ them straight from school and sent them to far flung corners of the UK to get their "qualification"? there are no appropriate courses in CT that adequately prepares students with the knowledge to be a biomed. I found three CT courses throughout the entire UK, two were aimed at physics technicians i.e. nuclear medicine and radiotherapy etc. The other was an engineering course with a heavy bias on mechanical engineering aimed at rehabilitation/ prostheic engineers/ technologists. If you live within commuting distance of Loughborough, Bradford of Cardiff (I think) then you may have a chance of getting the "correct" qualification.
Twenty years ago there used to be a course in "Medical Physics and Physiological Measurement" (MPPM). Working in physics back then we had a lot of sutdents come to us as part of their work experience, in eight years or so we only had three students apply to work in EBME. Not very useful as more than twenty people came to work for us via college/ polytechnic (remember them) in that time period. I see the CT training course going the same way. Our nearest MPPM course was in Nottingham, a bit of a hike from Sheffield. Do the VRCT also beieve that Philips, Siemens or G.E. will send all of their newbies to one of the few CT courses as part of their training?

The whole thing is a bit a**e about face anyway, we as biomeds or whatever we call ourselves are acting as agents for the medcial equipment manufacurers. They allow us to work on their equipment so it is in their interest that we are upto the job. Where do the manufacturers of the equipment stand on this issue?

Yes I know but the way I see it unless there's mandatory regulation then things will continue as they are, in my opinion, and it's only an opinion since I've nothing to do with VRCT other than being included on the register.

Bill
I think you are referring to the ONC in Medical Physics and Physiological Measurement that actually started in 1970 (or thereabouts) whereby students were employed by a Regional Health Authority or hospital group and you were seconded to various departments to learn the basics.
Once you had obtained your ONC, you could then be placed on a qualified technical grade.
You could also go on to do an HNC in Medical Physics or Applied Physiology, again with secondments in areas of your choice.
Both courses were mainly geared towards either working in Radiotherapy or one of the Phys. Meas. departments. It did not really cater for EBME guys unless you specialised in anaesthetics or the like.
The main thrust of the scheme was to take school leavers with A levels who wished to work in the NHS and provide them with appropriate qualifications as well as a grounding in each area, so that by the time the student qualified they could either apply for a job in the area that interested them or they were offered a position within the departments they had worked in during their two years of training.
In my opinion, if we are to attract guys into EBME from college or the like, is to offer a similar course leading to a degree, whereby the student gains experience in the role as well as gaining the appropriate "entry" qualification.
The "wrong" route of recruitment is to set the minimum qualification as a degree, obtained full time at university, and then employ them at the lowest grade possible whilst they have to undergo another two years or more of practical training before they can apply for a technical grade (ie Band 5/6).
Anyone with a bit of common is going to look at the payscales and conditions of service within the NHS and make a comparison to industry and then make a decision.