#30688 - 13/05/08 09:53 AM
AFC
|
Novice
Registered: 16/11/04
Posts: 10
Loc: T&F Hospital Omagh Co.Tyrone
|
Sorry folks! but help needed. Here in Omagh NI I have been banded as Band4 for MTO3 and I would hate to tell you what my me and my colleague in Fermanagh are being asked to do for that. Anyway can anyone supply an MTO3 Job Description and Spec.
My email address is frank.mcquade@westerntrust.hscni.net
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#30769 - 16/05/08 04:39 PM
Re: AFC
[Re: keano]
|
Sage
Registered: 22/07/05
Posts: 535
Loc: south yorkshire
|
Keano, I've not been able to get our band 5 JD but I had a look at the NHS careers website and found this, HCS pay rates There is a list of jobs and their expected grades. You could try to use this info to get you JD rewritten. It is obvious that the basic working grade is band 5, if your management refuse to budge just do the bare minimum that is required of a junior tech post. Good luck.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#30773 - 16/05/08 06:48 PM
Re: AFC
[Re: biomedbill]
|
Sage
Registered: 21/12/04
Posts: 527
Loc: UHBristol
|
I've not been able to get our band 5 JD but I had a look at the NHS careers website and found this, HCS pay rates There is a list of jobs and their expected grades. You could try to use this info to get you JD rewritten. It is obvious that the basic working grade is band 5, if your management refuse to budge just do the bare minimum that is required of a junior tech post. You'll notice that the Healthcare scientist profile, comes out nicely on band 4, where as the medical engineering technician profile clearly shows that profile as entry level. I take it another EBME job banded using this dreaded healthcare scientist profile! It seems that in some cases the difference between being matched to one profile or the other could result in being banded in a completely different band.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#30835 - 19/05/08 02:35 PM
Re: AFC
[Re: biomedbill]
|
Adept
Registered: 30/11/05
Posts: 85
Loc: Kent
|
Anyone placed onto the Generic Healthcare scientist profiles may have grounds for a new rematch, since it is a breach of matching procedure as laid down in the job evaluation handbook
"Identify what appears to be the nearest profile to match first. This must be from the same occupational grouping* as the job to be matched."
"* Examples of job families are: Nursing and Midwifery; Allied Health Professions (AHP); Administrative and Clerical jobs, Support Services.
Examples of occupational groups within these job families are: Nursing; Speech and Language Therapists; Finance jobs; Portering jobs."
Since medical technology profiles exist and have not been withdrawn these are the profiles for the "occupational group" that must be used.
For most people it will probably be too late to start a grievance for breach of matching procedure, but maybe not for N.I. and Scotland.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#31001 - 27/05/08 08:25 AM
Re: AFC
[Re: Chris Watts]
|
Adept
Registered: 30/11/05
Posts: 85
Loc: Kent
|
I'd be very interested in seeing that memo. I am aware of a few memo's on the use of the generic healthcare scientist profiles, but they were all to do with assimilating clinical scientists, and I haven't been able to locate anything to do with technicians on the NHS employers website.
From my point of view it would be useful since in medical physics I am trying to push for the generic profiles to be used - they allowed our principle tech to reach 8b.
Overall when used with the healthcare scientist career pathway they should enable greater progression and start to break down the technician/clinical scientist divides.
However I am not in favour of them being applied to band someone lower.
In the long run, points is points, and a job shouldn't be scored lower just to fit a different profile. But then the workings of a job evaluation panel is beyond the knowledge of us mere mortals (God only knows what the staff side members are doing on most panels, judging from outcomes)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#31008 - 27/05/08 10:53 AM
Re: AFC
[Re: Paul Allum]
|
Philosopher
Registered: 14/01/05
Posts: 768
Loc: NHS Surrey
|
"In the long run, points is points, and a job shouldn't be scored lower just to fit a different profile. But then the workings of a job evaluation panel is beyond the knowledge of us mere mortals (God only knows what the staff side members are doing on most panels, judging from outcomes)"
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."
Fiddle factor or what!!!!!!!
Needless to say, I told them where to shove it.
_________________________
Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#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: 527
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: 631
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 registered (Rob.Rsch, RoJo, Huw, Pirro, Ed SWM, John Stewart, delfin lemos jr, dansound, DaveC in Oz, Neil Porter, GeorgeK, hieu),
222
Guests and
15
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered: 20/06/00
Posts: 2074
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index