#31010 - 27/05/08 11:55 AM
Re: AFC
[Re: Kawasaki]
|
Adept
Registered: 30/11/05
Posts: 85
Loc: Kent
|
I eventually found out (following re-evaluation) from the Head of HR the following: When applying the score to the bands under AfC, if the score is in the lower half of the band, then the evaluation team will re-look at the matching and re-score in order to place it in the next band down!!!!! In other words, you have to score in the top half of the band to be placed in that band."
That is wrong on so many levels it beggars belief  . I take it you couldn't get that in writing?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#31011 - 27/05/08 12:46 PM
Re: AFC
[Re: Paul Allum]
|
Philosopher
Registered: 14/01/05
Posts: 768
Loc: NHS Surrey
|
Paul I didn't get it in writing but it was said in front of the Head of Department and Head of Medical Physics!! I therefore pressed home the point that there was obviously a cost saving exercise underway and that it was my duty to let everyone know!! Needless to say I eventually got my correct band. However, since I have left, they are jerking around again and changing the goalposts and offering lower bands.
_________________________
Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#31012 - 27/05/08 12:54 PM
Re: AFC
[Re: Paul Allum]
|
Mentor
Registered: 07/03/01
Posts: 165
Loc: Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, ...
|
Paul Did you ever use this http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=260 as a logical link between techs and clinical scientists? With a fair wind and ticks in all the right boxes (including manager support) it could get a tech right up to 8c as a Healthcare Scientist Professional Manager. Brian
_________________________
**** Still grumbling in the Pennines ****
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#31014 - 27/05/08 01:25 PM
Re: AFC
[Re: BBottomley]
|
Sage
Registered: 21/12/04
Posts: 524
Loc: UHBristol
|
Can't find the precise document that mentions the recommendation to use the generic profiles (just try searching on dh website for agenda for change!) but I did find this interesting document. Notice how the current workforce changes from nearly everybody on band 5/6 to a wide spread between bands 3 and about 8a. I maybe a bit cynical but it does seem that employers are more than happy to banding people lower to achieve this than banding them higher and employing less qualified people in the lower bands.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#31016 - 27/05/08 02:15 PM
Re: AFC
[Re: Kawasaki]
|
Philosopher
Registered: 17/09/06
Posts: 624
Loc: Hereford
|
I put this reply in a previous thread:- To match an AFC job description for banding, two sections ‘must be’ matched the Knowledge, training and experience (section 2) and Freedom to Act (section 12), you may then fail to match up to 4 of the other sections and as long as you reach the relevant job evaluation score you should get the band.
When (if) the regulation of Clinical Technologists happens anyone wishing to work as a medical engineer etc will either need to be "grand parented" on to the register or have completed an approved degree.
The AFC description for a Medical Engineering Technician band 5 Section 2:- Knowledge, Training and Experience says "Expertise within specialism, underpinned by theory. Professional electronics knowledge to degree equivalent level, acquired through BEng in electronics or HND + short courses or equivalent training and experience."
So combining the up coming regulation and AFC description it could be argued that anyone coming in to this role requires a degree and that anybody already in this role must have the equivalent training and experience.
As for autonomy unless the person you answer to supervises every thing you do including repairs on wards and work whilst on call then one could argue that a band 5 should be the minimum, for anybody already in post.
The AFC description for a Medical Engineering Technician Specialist adds specialist training and experience to section 2 and is lead practitioner for specialist equipment to section 12, therefore many people may be able to match a band 6. The staff on the matching panel will not know many of the jobs that they are evaluating; so it is up to the person writing the job description to ensure that the required wording is covered, (for example if the Job profile says “analysing faults in complex multifaceted equipment put it in your job description). If you go for re banding then ensure you use the words from the job profile to make it easy for the evaluation panel to see that you tick the boxes. Lee
_________________________
Don't forget "we've never had it so good".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#31025 - 28/05/08 10:29 AM
Re: AFC
[Re: Chris Watts]
|
Master
Registered: 17/12/03
Posts: 282
Loc: Wales
|
We have 2 technicians here who were given Band 4, and increased to band 5 on review. That was last November. They are still being paid on band 4 and when I questioned this recently, all those who have been or awaiting review are on hold while the consistency checks are revisited.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 registered (ipetev, Huw, rob, Chris Watts, Mary, biomedbill, Neil Porter, tomiteus, Rob.Rsch, Nige G, Max, Lee S, desmondo, Paul Allum, Paul Owens, RoJo, Barney, robertenglp),
376
Guests and
22
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Registered: 30/11/00
Posts: 39
|
|
|