I disagree on syllabus, what duties a department performs depends a lot on the structure of the department, i.e. if they base teams on speciality or location. The department they are affiliated to i.e. Estates, Medical physics or a Medical electronics department on their own. Then there's the issue of charitable funds, a lot more people are willing to donate to help sick children in hospitals like Great Ormond street than they are to some other specialities in a hospital. The speciality of the hospital also pays a part, in some area's companies make their money out of the sale of equipment, where as others it's out of the sale of consumables and the equipment remains the property of the manufacture. The you get the thorny issue of financial status, those in the red do seem more keen on retail than purchase.

These factors will often effect how much of a box changer your average tech is or if they actually have to get their multimeter and soldiering iron out and fix something! What one department requires in training maybe not be the same in the other.

As for attendance I don't know what other trusts accommodation budget is like for training but for training courses even a travel lodge is seen as decadent! I don't think trusts would want to send their staff away for too long, that is why the EWP course is appealing. If on the other hand it was the tech who had to pay for this, like other similar schemes the tech would expect a job guaranteed at the end of training and often higher pay to compensate. Since most people coming into the field aren't trainees out of school or college it would probably eliminate all current job applicants!

The problem with VRCT and working in the medical engineering field is that it is always looking at things from an NHS only perspective.

What is not taking into account is how many external companies provide the service and maintenance of medical equipment. There is no way the UK are going to be able to insist on a specific degree (or otherwise) course before someone can work on medical equipment.

For me what would be better is to take engineers that have done a general electronics engineering course (ONC, HNC, B-TEC, BSC or whatever) and then insist a short course in undertaken, like the electricians do for the Part P requirement, before you can work un-supervised on medical equipment. This is about the best you could get without the costs being too prohibitive.

The medical companies have a lot of difficulty attracting new staff as it is without putting more barriers in the way!

Regardless of the financial structure of hospital trusts, which are in any case subject to almost constant change, in-service medical equipment will still need to be supported by competent technical staff.

Properly trained techs should be able to slot in to whatever weird and wonderful arrangements are the flavour of the month at any particular hospital. After all, kit is still kit whether it "comes under" Estates, Medical Physics, EBME or Uncle Tom Cobley (the third-party contractor).

The VRCT is just a smoke screen. It proves nothing and adds little of real value (in my opinion). What is needed is a return to the apprenticeship ideal, whereby young people get a thorough foundation in engineering applications and principles, plus plenty of "hands-on" practical work. I am talking of a process taking three years, not two weeks! Over such a period of time, a student can be "brought on", mentored, and taught by example. As we all know, a good biomed needs certain personal qualities, and these can be developed if need be. There's more to it than simply being good technically.

That's another reason why (to my mind) a degree proves nothing! What use (in the biomed scenario) is an educated "boffin", if s/he can't hack the "emotional blackmail" (and all the rest) that goes with the job?

You're right when you say that very few school leavers are attracted into the "trade". If they were paid (by the tax-payer, naturally) to attend the (long) training course, on the understanding that they would be embarking on a career in the NHS, perhaps a few more might find the idea appealing.

I believe it is about time those in charge (supposedly) of this country moved away from the notion of an endless stream of "cost-cutting" "quick-fixes", and started thinking in terms of policies of lasting value.

Indeed!


Isn't this idea already covered by the training provided by the companies?

They should be able, but if your talking about creating a basic training scheme, what classifies as basic training is questionable. Some medical electronics departments only touch electronics, so they would probably not want basic training to include anaesthetics, piped medical gas, x-ray, etc. These would probably be seen as specialist but in other places they might be required as basic training.

The problem with this is that this model fits better when the employer is recruiting from school or college leavers and training them up. Mostly this is not where most new employees come from, your looking at quite a lot either starting out in another electronics field or the armed forces. The grand parenting clause of the VRCT has been gradually tightening up by adding the requirement of a HNC in 2001 and then closed for those who started after Jan 2007. So it may be that one day even you Geoff might have to meet the primary criteria and how will you like to have to take a three year training process with all the experience you have! What would be more useful would be a standard electronics qualification with twelve month on the job training program, which is what usually happens at a lot of places.

That's a terrible idea, if you set up a training scheme where it's expected that a job exists at the end, you end up employing complete idiots who perhaps seemed ok at the start of training but now you have to employ because the real alternative doesn't have the appropriate long term training certificate. You've also got the problem that you train someone up for a certain number of years, pay for their degree or hnc and then they scarper. Far better to recruit by asking for a standard vocational education requirement at interview and train on the job.

That's OK. As long as you (the tax-payer) foots the bill, I would probably lap it up!


No problem. "Idiots" would fail the course, so there would be no obligation then to take them on. Those who "scarper" would simply be prosecuted for breach of contract.

I don't know what the current policy is, but previous here any course that lead to a vocational qualification like HND/degree had to be paid for by the individual. Not so appealing when you have to pay for it yourself!

Unfortunately there's always going to questions about educational standards and it does seem that it's possible for the mentally challenged to slip through the cracks. As for contracts how long do you set the minimum contract? For sponsorship of most degrees this is normally about two years, but its still questioned if a company benefits in some instances or if they just break even.

Anyway I think at the moment we are currently in a period of VRCT sleep, with only a little interest being paid to it. If a register of clinical technologists actually makes it to parliament we might see more interest with perhaps alternatives routes to the EWP route.

zzzZZZ!

Question? Do the trusts have the funds or will they GET the FUNDS to train those who like me don't have the foundation degree!! if they insist this as a min for registration but have been in the field of medical equip for over 15yrs!! Could there be a lot of jobs at risk one asks????
I must admit I am to getting like Jeff zzzzz

What's that? Did something stir?

I think the situation may have changed a bit now, don't you? Who knows what tomorrow may bring, when the lunatics are in charge at the asylum?

Meanwhile, I'm starting to feel a bit drowsy once again. zzzZZZ zzzZZZ