Hi Chaps,

It occurs to me that having spent numerous years servicing & repairing critical medical devices, no one has ever formally asked me or checked if I know what I am doing!

Obviously interviews are necessary in order to get a job and qualifications applicable to the field support an individual’s knowledge but, in the ever developing nature of our work how can we be sure we are up to speed with current tech and that trainees are receiving adequate & accurate support/information?

I'd like to hear any opinions/ideas on how one could 'measure' (Qualitatively) the results of training an individual/department may have received, be it from external training or by spending a period of time 'shadowing' a more experience tech.

Your comments are appreciated.

Incidentally, I do know what I’m doing (at least that’s my opinion!)

Thanks.

No one ever challenged you ... because you had that air of confidence and competence about you, Robert!

But yes - being judged by one's peers is probably the most ... er, illuminating!

Hi Rob,

Qualititative measures can never 'prove' that someone is competent, but you could quantatively compare the performance of one qualified person against a group of qualified professionals using asset tracking data.

... or better yet (and as Robert has already alluded to), and far cheaper still, let one of the Old Sweats spend a couple of hours with the tech in question.

Thanks John,

Sounds interesting, could you ellaborate a little regarding 'asset tracking data'?


Thanks,

Dare I mention professional registration (e.g. VRCT) where you have to keep a portfolio of your activities and how you are keeping yourself up to date and expanding your knowledge? This is then inspected - albeit at random - to make sure you are maintaining competency.
Head back down before the flack starts flying.
RoJo

On the other hand, I suppose you could always "maintain competency" by simply carrying on doing your job. That is, by being competent.

"Portfolio of your activities"? What's that? Do you mean your time-sheet?

I think John means a check on who is doing (has done) the actual work (eg, by checking whose initials appear most often in equipment histories, job reports etc.).

Either that or he his advocating the RFID tagging of all his techs (you know, to see who spends the most time in the coffee shop, chatting up the nurses, or otherwise "standing still")!

There's some guidance in DB2006(05)Managing Medical Devices. Section 8.1.1 recommends random audits be carried out to verify correct repair and maintenance procedures are being adhered to.Also, section 8.3.1 gives guidance regarding training and experience of staff.

Dinosaurs probably carried on what they doing right upto the moment they sunk into the tar pit!

These days there is the need keep up with your training and CPD otherwise you may find you've become the Dinosaur.

I take it he means similar to the lines as preparing for Engineering registration and not VRCT, a time sheet just shows you've turned up.

Although before I worked in the NHS the company I use to work for used job codes. There was codes for user abuse, bad workmanship, warranty failure, and various other reasons for failure. Along with tracking the number of times an item was returned in a year, competency and training issues could be identified in both staff and customers.

As Kevin says, random audits could be used. If you have a quality system in place (ISO 9000ish) you could use that to implement an audit whereby staff can be randomly assessed against a list of parameters suitable to your needs. We have a skills matrix but it is impossible to keep on top of, we have more than 40 engineers/ techs and several thousand different makes & models of equipment. You could look at using PDR's (Professional Development Reviews) we have tham at our place mainly beecause we are part of the Diagnostic Imaging group and they HAVE to have PDR's as part of their registration requirements. It would be rude of me not to return fire at RoJo but there are better registration models that you-know-who?

As part of the management function of a previous life running a medical & dental section, the engineering management system utilised record of experience charts to record the functional competence of technicians after initial training. On completion the manager and exec officer, as well as the individual would sign off as competent. This would then become part of their individual PDR and remain with them, just in case people like the VRCT/IET or any other professional body that the individual was registered with wanted proof.
This information was also viewed every two years as part of a technical audit on the whole functionality of the workshop - inclusive of customer feedback and effectiveness of the engineering support delivered.
Does anybody get there workshop externally audited and to what standard? Who sets the audit standard? If a technician entered the profession from another discpline what common equipment would they be required to be trained on, apart from elect safety testing, to make him effective to deliver a basic service?

If memory serves me correctly there is a report in your database that shows how many times an engineer has worked on a model (and I think a breakdown of job types). It was used for initially setting up the competency list there some time ago. VL might be able to show you.

As for RFID tagging the engineers Geoff, great idea but I think you'd unfortunately meet some resistance of that one.

Thanks SR!

I have looked at the database report and I think it could be adpated to include a few extra feilds. (ie create an item of equipment such as 'Electrical Safety Theory' or 'Fundamentals of Ventilation' and get MTOs to write up jobs against those items as and when they have training in that area.)

The other problem at the moment is the database is on its last legs... not looking well at all recently :-(

Thanks again, hope things are going well!

Yes ... I know all about Job Codes. They are often incorrectly allocated (entered).


... GIGO?

If you (or your colleagues) need any assistance I've passed on my contact details. Feel free to give me a call.

Things are going fine BTW.

Not exactly sure how relevant this will be but.....
My previous employer had a database system in which all jobs were logged by an administrator and assigned to individuals by a supervisor. Included in the "jobsheet" were boxes for labour times, parts etc etc. The sheet was passed back to the administrator and all the relevant information put on the database against the technicians name.
Searchable fields in the database included technicians names, MTBF(mean time between failures), average repair times etc. Therefore you could search how many jobs an indivudual has completed and run a comparative check against other tech's of a similar stature. Obvious discrepancies for individual techs, such as long repair times, unusually high return faults etc should become apparent against individual pieces of equipment. This should allow you to formulate a relevant training plan to ensure everyone operates on the same level - that was the theory anyway!

T'was like a Big Brother state though and did nothing for staff morale.

Indeed. And what use was made of such information, one wonders?

Or can we assume that is was simply used as a stick with which to beat the happy workers?

It's a well known "management" technique, that of setting everyone in competition with everyone else. It can even work well (in the sense of delivering the results required by the Organisation) ... in the army, for example!

In my experience, given time, the happy worker sees through all that c**p, and (assuming of course that s/he is even interested in so-called "career development" at all) ends up simply "playing the game" (that is, "giving them what they want" ... but little, if anything, else). Oh yes, it's a great tool (but just one of the many) for stifling initiative or any semblance of creativity, and producing a team of, er ... drones!

Therein lies the problem. We were always assured the information was used for improving machine reliability but it seemed to be accessed most at redundancy time! Friction was created between some of the lazy types ("get paid no matter how much I do") and those with a genuine work ethic as the information was accessable to everyone. Then there were those in the middle ground who just did enough to get by and as you say "play the game".
There is no doubt though that it can be an effective tool if utilised properly. There are several areas which can be picked up on, for instance, one tech does all the work on one type of equipment - is that due to him being happy toddling along doing that or is it due to lack of trained techs?
If used the right way it could seriously improve the way things are done but as with many of these systems it is open to misuse or abuse.

What's that (old-fashioned?) word? ... leadership!

And, as long as the kit gets maintained, does it matter much if the work is done by, er ... toddlers?

Sounds like it could also be manipulated, I mean if you've got a manager who wants more staff they could adjust the times to show they need more staff, or adjust the figures to make it seem their more economic.

What do they say, lies, damn lies and statistics!