In the DoH consultation document and other stuff concerning regulation of Healthcare Sciences that I've read there are statements declaring the need for 3rd parties involved working in heathcare to meet the same requirements if they peform the same role as NHS employees in protected roles.

There's nothing about how this is going to be achieved - saying that there's nothing to explain how regulation of those working in Healthcare Scientist roles will be implemented. I'd expect 3rd parties to be regulated along the same lines but doubt it will work in practise.

I found an article on the IET website IET VRCT explaining the role of the Clinical Technologist, at the end of the piece there was a FAQ section. The last question asked if field service engineers had to be registered. Part of the reply stated “If an individual only undertakes a sub-set of the scope of practice, such as repairing and maintaining medical equipment, it could well be that they are not operating as a clinical technologist and therefore not elegible to join.”

What does this mean? The scope of practice for Clinical Technologists is so wide ranging that I rekon no one will be able to fulfil their requirements.

Must admit I've expressed this concern many times in threads on this site. I've always considered that it's a possibility.

There is a specific scope of practice for Medical Engineering Technologists which was prepared by Medical Engineering Technologists! The details can be found at: http://www.ipem.ac.uk/ipem_public/default.asp?id=892

If you have any suggestions or comments on this scope of practice please send them to me privately.

The VRCT has recently written to all VRCT Registrants providing them with an update on the regulation process. If you are not a registrant you can read a copy of this letter at: http://www.ipem.ac.uk/ipem_public/default.asp?id=953

I have but they appear to have been deleted unread?

Richard

I certainly have not deleted your message from my private folder. I have just checked and your message is still there! I have been in London yesterday and today at a Department of Health conference on regulation and intend to reply to you within the next few days. The deletion of the message from your files has nothing to do with me.

Jim

Apologies for that.

I got a cryptic message on my sent/read status indicator on private messages that said "none" after initially indicating that it was "Jim Methven:unread", i.e. it looked to me like it hadn't been read or retained - obviously I won't be relying on that indicator (or the way I interpret it) in future.

Richard.

Jim,
I have grave reservations about the regulation of engineers from manufacturers or third party service organisations.
I see no difference between what they do to as an example when fixing a ventilator on ITU and what I do. And the consequences of getting it right are just as important no matter who does the job.
None NHS engineers seem to be under the impression that they wont be registered and we will take all of the responsibility.
I also worry that if companies arent forced down the same road as us they could appear cheaper as less quals and training could be applied to none registerd engineers and therefore less pay hence any competative tender for a service level cover of our skills could appear to be significantly cheaper than the in house model.
I also have concern that the companies think they have the NHS over a barrel on this one. Because ulimately, registered or not, if a hospital needs something fixing and they dont have us someone will have to make the decision to allow a service engineer to carry out a repair.
To this extent I personally have written to my MP and asked him to seek clarification from the health minister that any one carrying out autonimous, none supervised,duties and responsibilities to a clinical technologists post. Whether that be NHS or private industry are registered in the same manner.

Karl,
This is perhaps the most contencious issue regarding registration/ regulation. Everyone who does our job should be treated the same irrespective of who they work for. The idea of regulation is to provide a level playing field for workers in the same discipline. i.e. a service engineer from Siemens should have the same "level" of competence as ourselves. Obviously their knowledge base may be different to ours and mine from yours, it's the nature of the job. That is why we are pushing for the IET to take a lead on this issue and help to make the regulation more universal. It is unforunate that Medical Physics have been the driving force for regulation because they want to keep the traditional Medical Physics Technician roles as they were. In today's NHS most of the equipment "management" is carried out by non Medical Physics staff so a large proportion of the "scope of practice for Clinical Technologists" written by the IPEM is not entirely relevant.
We need a good engineering background followed by experience gained on the job. As I mentioned earlier every biomed facility will probably have a different knowledge base, for example we don't have a maternity unit so we do not need to know about foetal monitors or incubators etc.