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)