All

Quick straw poll, out of interest as I hold my renewal form in my hand, contemplating wether to fill it in, forgetting all the debate, who's renewed this year?

Regards

Alan

I've renewed Alan. I think its a useful benchmark for EBME staff.

I have done it. Am not sure when the govt will make it compulsory to have that registration.

I've renewed Alan. I feel its important that as many as possible join if we are ever to be seen as a clinical profession

Being able to do your job is a useful benchmark, no matter what club you belong to.

We talk about bench mark. What bench mark are we working to. Seems like if you can say you have been doing the job for years thats good enough. Sorry we all know someone we have worked with that have been doing the job for years and they are still not trusted with sharp instruments. How about looking at the formal qualifications against experience.

We also have to look at what a load of crap has been dumped on nurses due to the wonderful registration. High cost and cock all support. As has been asked before can we have a written guarantee that the price is not going to go up by more than inflation or our wages. Still waiting for that answer.

Why bother with anyone being registered for any profession? Doctors, lawyers, architects, police officers….. If they have been doing the job for a while, that will do for me. Who needs accountability, Minimum standards etc, etc…

Little wonder that other healthcare professional such as physiotherapist, nurses and pathology technicians don’t always see us as equals.

30 years ago I was a TV engineer – it was a job. After almost 30 years of commitment, study and personal development. I for one, and I know I speak for most, clearly see myself and the work I do as every bit as much a profession as any other medical professional.

For those who wish to bury their head in the sand change will come like it or not. Registration at some point will become compulsory as it has for every other medical profession.

Most of the engineering technicians working in healthcare I have ever had the pleasure of knowing have shared your passion, enthusiasm and commitment, David. In my view, it "goes with the turf" as they say.

Personally, I have never noticed any resentment from the other staff in the hospital(s). In fact, in my experience, the usual sentiment has been one of gratitude.

I've also been long enough in the game to have observed (on quite a few occasions) techs who have come into the "trade" and then the next thing you know they think that are medics. I have always "discouraged" that sort of thing myself, largely on ethical grounds (that is, unethical)!

In fact I would argue that we need to distinguish ourselves from the medics, not become more integrated, if only for the sake of not misleading the patients!

You're right that registration may well become compulsory ... that is, forced upon us (but so what ... how about CORGI registered gas engineers?), but even then we shall not become "medical professionals" (or even "clinical technologists"), however much some folk want to dress it up. You claim that you "speak for most", Mate ... but somehow I doubt that.

If that were to be the case, how come there is so much debate about the issue? Why doesn't everyone simply join the Register in eager anticipation (about its benefits) and good grace (believing it to be a "good thing", or whatever)?

Certificates, names on lists, bits of paper and all the rest doesn't make anyone "equal". And who wants to be considered "equal" (to lab techs et al) anyway? Especially as "better than" has always been the case in general!

If what we are really talking about here is recognition and respect, well ... there are other, time-honoured, ways of achieving (earning) those.

As I must have said a million times, we are engineering technicians, and registration with the Engineering Council is more than sufficient.

I dont think that anyone can knock registration but as for Daves comment on not seeing us as equals. May I say bullshit as they know that if they treat us badley they will not have anything to work with.
I work closely with consultants here and they do listen to what we have to say. Those who choose otherwise got bitten. They know that we are professional at our job and I for one havent got registration to say so.
I agree with you Geoff registration with the Engineering Council is more than sufficient. By the way I must register . Plus with registration in the Engineering council it does close shop the medical sector. We need new blood in this field bringing new ideas to replace the old gaurd that are retiring. Whether these are from industry or Apprentices. As Dave has said himself he was a TV repair man, well if he had tried to get a job now with everyone coming out with VRCT membership he wouldnt be employed. It has to be said that this is not a qualification so therefore it should have no bearing on employment. It is also 'voluntary', need I say anymore.

As a footnote there needs to be a clear agenda on what can be achieved and how much it is going to cost us.

Billy

How about a register set up by Medical Engineers for Medical Engineers and not a pile of physists (no offence). Lets call it VRMT:)

This has been suggested a couple of times before, Billy. I guess there's no reason why our "club" shouldn't be as good as any other!

You can be Treasurer if you want (you get my vote, anyway).

Not sure about the name, though. If it were down to me, I'd prefer to keep it a bit, shall we say, light-hearted (you know, rather than lots of bluster about how important we all are).

Perhaps you (as Treasurer) should open up a new thread, starting off by asking for suggestions for the name!

Secret handshakes and all that, seriously though would this "club" include overseas techs, not just expats ???

I think I'll wield this before this thread goes off into alternative imaginary registers, perhaps those who want to discuss imaginary registers can create another thread.



Back onto topic I've renewed, if the VRCT ever becomes none voluntary there's the possibility the VRCT will be transfered directly to the hpc, whereas the hpc charge quite a bit for people registering with them.

OK Chris does the VRCT include overseas and expats on their register, what if an overseas tech did a locum in the UK, would he/she have to be registered in the UK or does the VRCT recognise overseas bodies ???

I think you've found a good one there Neil, from the Guidelines
So those who've never worked in the UK would have to train again!

Aha! At last, a good reason to join! Where do I sign up?

(can't see that one staying in there very long now, though, eh)?

OK ... here's an idea (challenge) for the bods at VRCT.

Arrange matters so that the Membership become eligible for WLI's and/or "working in four-hour blocks" at £ 500 to £ 1,000 a go ... then even I will sign up, and apply for the lowest salaried biomed position being advertised!

It seems that those who represent the various "healthcare professionals" actually do something for their membership, rather than simply bleating on about "lack of recognition" (no-one appreciates us ... boo-hoo) and all that non-consequential ****. Plus, of course, talk of "raising standards" (without any clues about the all-important:- how?).

OK, so techs simply fork out their annual subs (what is it, £ 10 or so?) just for the comfort of having their names retained on a list that may (or may not) one day become a "requirement" (for their continued employment within the NHS). May as well just pay it by Direct Debit, then forget all about it, then.

But does anyone really believe that the Big Boys in the NHS (eg, the surgeons et al) actually give a damn about who fixes their toys (why should they)? To them it's probably a case of:- "Oh, that must be Mick from Maintenance".

I had better make this point as well:- those Big Earners (the surgeons, the Consultants) habitually (and despite so-called "reforms") still work very long hours. How many NHS biomeds do that these days?

* That's "Waiting List Initiative" payments for those who don't know.

So Chris, you will not recognise qualifications from outside the UK, therefore if a piece of equipment is shipped-in only UK biomeds will be able to install, operate and train the staff.

What is it you're suggesting, Neil ... that it's supposed to be a Closed Shop?

Obviously, the Registered Bods will have to travel overseas to get trained! Get real, Mate!

No Geoff I am not saying that, if you look at the statement from Chris "only UK trained can join the VRCT" therefore if a tech from Holland accompanies an X-ray machine will he be allowed to work on the unit. I trained in the UK some 30 years ago and have only been back sporadically, will I be able to join? (not that I want to anyway)

"mwfmlmmmnoooggeenwww" I feel the need to contribute but I think I've said enough on the subject. Well spotted Neil, it's a very "closed shop" with limited real world value.

That Philips (?) guy would be a contractor and/or an employee of the manufacturer, would he not, Neil? And therefore, "different rules" would apply. Namely, responsibility would be taken by the Company.

But, as to blokes such as yourself popping back for the odd locum:- well, we are thinking up about setting up a Tribunal of the Elders (right here on the forum) who would decide PDQ whether you got the thumbs up (down) or not.

Well it aims to be a closed shop, as there is no set root for new engineers to train as an EBME, so if it becomes mandatory and the register is closed, then what’s the root in?

Would this registration requirement apply to contractors?

I do agree just because you have done the job, don’t make you good at it.

Plus it will never become adopted by the state has it would cost to much to put in place and monitor.

Actually Neil the next sentence after the one I quoted states that all foreign qualifications need to be accredited by UK NARIC which is quite a step forward because I've heard stories of people who haven't bothered and you can't tell if they've got a qualification or a foreign Chinese take away menu. Then again how's a UK employer going to know if it was issued by hollywood upstairs engineering college or something comparable with MIT?

The guidenotes are here so you can check it out yourself.

This may be the relevant bit, Neil:-

Catch 22???

Chicken and egg.

I will ask my grandparents if I can join or not, as I have until the end of the year before their authority runs out.

You would have thought that, by now, everyone who was both eligible and keen to join would have already done so!

If Registration is such a fantastic idea, I wonder why "they" don't just get on with it (that is, drop the "Voluntary" bit, and be done with it)?

They should be OK now that the Royal Corps of Transport has been subsumed by the Royal Logistic Corps.*

Meanwhile, me and Billy are still having problems coming up with a catchy name for the Club of our own.

Is the Ar-riyadh Biomedical Engineering Club still thriving, by the way, Neil? Or was that yet another damp squib?

* Also known as the "Really Large Corps".

Never heard of Ar-riyadh, for 'your' club, can I join or are you going to limit this to UK biomeds. How about "Not the VRCT Biomed Club" catchy eh! Might offend Chris though!

Maybe ARBEC has withered on the vine. That's the trouble with these "clubs":- everyone starts off all fired up, and then one by one they (find an excuse to) fall by the wayside, usually leaving one or two stalwarts to carry on unassisted.

But we don't know any website forums like that, though, do we?

Anyway Neil, I'm sure that we must have discussed the idea of an "Expat Biomed Association" before, you and I. But, unfortunately, I'm no longer an expat these days. And neither is our Old Mate, Tony Dowman (anyone remember Big Tony? - he used to get on here from time to time). And, I should add, many others who were "out there" at various times.

There again, there is (was) also the "Biomed Buddies" (ah yes, that's more like it). But these days I'm happy to consider joining someone else's club. It's a job for a younger man, all that "jollying folk along", you know. Thankfully, my own "leadership" days are well in the past now, and I was let down too many times to even think about having another go.

Never mind about Chris. He's harmless enough, and seems to enjoy the "cut and thrust" of debate ... which, in my opinion, is what this forum (and indeed, Biomed Clubs) is - or should be - all about! And, as far as I'm concerned, everyone is welcome.

Meanwhile, here's one that might let you in, Neil.

I imagine it would have to go through parliament first and since they mostly hang out in the bars all day, the VRCT would require a lot of beer and wine to push that through.

MPs have more pressing matters that they need to be attending to, I should imagine.

And, to be honest, I wish they would just get on with them! Many of the woes of Modern Britain could be put to rights in a single afternoon of Emergency Legislation, I reckon.

Getting back to Alan's original question:-

Yes I have renewed for a number of reasons, including the fact that my employer requires that I am a member.

Before you all go on about this being wrong and that the scheme being voluntary think about it this way:-

I knew at the time of my application that this was a requirement and I chose (volunteered) to continue because I wished to work for them as a respected employer.

I Have signed up again BAA!

I've renewed too!

Does anybody know of an "official" appropriate training scheme? It is all very well having a registration scheme but when (if) it becomes compulsory you will have to do approved training to get on it. I hear that the Government cuts have meant that the group planning this is now disbanded so the scheme is only partially completed. Assuming it follows the Clinical Scientist/Engineer pattern there will have to be "approved£ degree courses, anyone know of any of these? I know there are very few in the Medical Physics technologists side of things but I know of none in the EBME/Biomed/Clinical Technologist area.
Is the scheme actually dead in the water?
RoJo

Voluntary?


Yes. As it was from the beginning.

The whole issue of VRCT comes under the principles of MSC, or Modernising Scientific Careers, MSC for short. The main objectives of this programme are:

The MSC programme:

• ensures that healthcare science meets future service needs by ensuring that scientific and technical advances are integrated into emerging models of integrated care

• creates clear career pathways and education & training programmes in a common framework for the whole of the scientific workforce at all levels of practice, while recognising the particular training needs of each specialism.

• brings education & training into line with that of other healthcare professionals

• ensures appropriate equivalence structures to take into account an individual’s previous skills, education and training

• provides an improved approach to workforce planning and development of an appropriate skill mix with tools to support the planning and commissioning of scientific services

• The modular approach gives more flexibility for individual scientists and the service, improving patient care by allowing a quicker response to innovations and a better
ability to meet local need

• introduces sustainable funding arrangements that are fit for purpose and offer value for money

• is based on professional engagement and consultation. The programme has held a series of discussion, consultation and deliberative events across the UK since 2008, engaging a wide range of partners including professional bodies and representatives of the healthcare science workforce.

• provides greater opportunities for clinical leadership through relevant training


See the links below:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Aboutus/Chiefprofessionalofficers/Chiefscientificofficer/DH_086661

http://www.ipem.org.uk/ipem_public/article.asp?aid=4334&id=

But it is the MSC programme that has been cut off in its prime leaving the training of technologists half done.
RoJo

This was published on the NHS Employers website in November so I can't see the MSC programme being cut off.

MSC checklist


04/11/2010

NHS Employers has produced a checklist to help employers prepare for the next stage of Modernising Scientific Careers (MSC).

MSC is an opportunity to refocus and re-energise the healthcare science workforce to meet the increasing demands of future healthcare delivery. NHS Employers has produced the following checklist which provides practical steps that employers should take to engage with, and support, the implementation of MSC.

Identify a person as an MSC co-ordinator or lead and make sure he/she is known to the SHA MSC lead. You should also consider the membership of your project group.

Ensure all stakeholders, including the board, staff and trade unions understand the aims and outcomes of the MSC programme.

Ensure senior managers are on board with the transformation of healthcare science careers.

Identify and locate all of your current healthcare science workforce on the electronic staff record (ESR).

Undertake a full profile map of your current healthcare science workforce by age, specialism and skills profile.

Undertake an analysis of work done by grade of scientist.

Match your current workforce to MSC practitioner/scientist/ senior scientist/consultant roles.

Review current use of skills and grades against current and future service requirements.

Start discussions with PCT commissioners on innovative ways of delivering services and tendering for education in partnership with the SHA.

Create skills profiles for new, more efficient care pathways and look at maximising opportunities with assistant and associate roles.

Drive innovation in care pathways and location of delivery of care with senior-level scientists, engaging senior scientific staff to make the most of their existing knowledge and skills.

Provide tools and support for workforce development and transformation, seeking input from clinical and non-clinical fields.

Assess capacity to act as a training establishment, placement provision and capacity and quality of training provided.

Develop future training and recruitment strategies for healthcare scientists.

Develop the assistant and associate workforce, including clear pathways to qualified practitioner and scientist roles.

Ensure current workforce is either regulated or part of a voluntary register, where available.

Identify potential links with other local NHS providers in order to maximise opportunities for sharing knowledge and best practice, and broaden workforce development opportunities.

Lessons learnt from the early adopter project will allow us to continually build our knowledge and provide employers with updated information and guidance on the implementation of MSC.

This statement is out of date, it mentions collaborations with the PCT's. Aren't the gov't scrapping PCT's?
But the main issue here is, are we Healthcare Scientists? I don't know about you but I'm a Service Engineer who happens to work on Medical Equipment. I do not deliver care to paitents, I get leaned on by clinical/ scientific staff to get their equipment back ASAP so that THEY can use it on patients. And as for status/ remuneration, my colleauges and I are doing ok thank you very much.

Any vacancies, I wonder, for this MSC Checklist "Practitioner" (whatever) lark? Working through that pile of BS should keep me "engaged" for a few years at least. Just as long as they keep paying the salary.

And just think of all those jolly meetings, travel claims, meals on expenses, and all the rest!

OK ... back to reality. Kit to be fixed!

PCT's have to be referred to still because they still exist at the time of writing.

The proposals refer to the 'umbrella' of Healthcare Science, which service engineers, medical equipment engineers, technical support engineers, clinical technologists or my own personal favourite, technical support officers come under.

Healthcare Science is all professions within the NHS workforce that can be considered to be within that category, no matter how different the jobs are.

You are right Bill all of us here are service engineers. No healthcare scientist or clinical engineer will bother to come to ebme site.

It was after a review in november or december 2010 that they started talking about MSC and getting rid of the grandparenting route to entry. So the new government has surely not forgot about we poor people.

What are we upto with no course for primary route? I dont know. but I am sure they will come out with a course. VRCT has given a very precise list of the topics they want included in the course.

As RoJo said, there are no courses for MET(med engg tech) but there are for renal tech, nuclear medicine and rehab tech. Hopefully, some day some university will come out with a course for us as well. If nothing comes up, they will have to introduce a 'Extended Extended Grandparenting' route so that they are not out of business. They have a list of about 3000 ppl now and cannot just stop accepting applications as there are many more people working on medical equipment in hospitals.

@ Biomed
we come in allied healthcare professionals not in helthcare science or scientists

@ Tejas

We come under the staff group: Additional Professional Scientific & Technical

Has Eastwood Park given up, then?

they have not got theirs accredited by VRCT so it will just give knowledge not certification.

Shouldn't take too much to get that sorted out, I wouldn't have thought.

After all, it looks like most of the boxes are being ticked already!

More likely to hang out on the medical physics engineering list instead.

Although over there they did discuss the VRCT and one opinion expressed was that if the Government was keen to register social workers it obviously still supports registration. The new HCPC can hold voluntary registers so they could in theory hold the VRCT.

It seems that the VRCT website has also picked up on this and are seeing what it means for the VRCT.

the course content looks interesting.. much of it matches VRCT guidelines.

May not be very useful to us in northwest.. they are doing it with Kingston University unless they can run classes here.

Are there many who are not able to get into VRCT directly?

Yes, the folk at VRCT (whomever they may be) are seemingly well known to be quick on the uptake.

Proactive? Hardly. Reactive? Yes, that sounds more like it.

How long has all this been dragging on now?

What our trade needs is real leadership! As in:-

"Lead, follow - or get out of the way"!

Quote from the VRCT website, from 'VRCT Assessors' Panel Terms of Reference':


'The Voluntary Register of Clinical Technologists Assessors’ Panel (the Panel) is a Committee formed by the professional bodies supporting the Voluntary Register of Clinical Technologists. These professional bodies are currently: the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, the Association of Renal Technologists and the Institution of Engineering and Technology.'


Also Geoff, another way of looking at it is that VRCT is still around... which can tell you it is here to stay. From the trends that I am seeing, it is here to stay... either in its present form or something very similar.

As for the 'Practitioner' title.... we as service engineers will become or already are compliant to be practitioners... that doesn't mean our job titles will change.


In Glasgow, they have an in-house scheme where pre-qualified practitioners become qualified to join the VRCT. It is about competencies being assessed in-house and education. I read that anatomy and physiology is done by a local college.

This is just an example of one scheme. I reckon each NHS Trust will have to go down this route. It doesn't mean that new entry service engineers always have to go and do a VRCT or IPEM approved degree scheme.

You've hit on one of the areas where the VRCT and now the MSC have got things totally wrong.


In my time I have worked on Dialysis Equipment, X-Ray systems, Ultrasound, Ventilators, Anaesthetic Machines as well as almost every other type of medical equipment you can think of. How do the VRCT et al. propose to train someone to do all this? The training schemes are designed to push the student down one of four specialities, Renal, Radiation, Equipment Management or Rehabilitation. In the future we will have a situation where engineers will refuse to work on equipment outside of their chosen field. It is a contradiction to the ethos of multi-tasking.
If the VRCT want to produce well rounded biomeds (not CT's) they should have done more research into the situation throughout the Country. Especially areas that are not managed by Medical Physics.

Once again you get my vote, Bill.

In short (and despite, as previously pointed out, this VRCT thing having been lurking about for a number of years now), they seemingly still haven't thought the thing through. And (even worse) have failed to articulate the "vision" to the Rank and File.

In fact I would go as far as saying that the Rank and File has largely been ignored, with a simple assumption that they would "fall in line" as and when required.

Marketing? Zero.

Joined up thinking? Low marks again, I'm afraid.

Arrogance? That would seem to be the case.

Unionized demarkation lines, one of the reasons I left the UK

I think you'll find union's have nothing to do with this. It's more to do with the rise (and now fall) of the quangos and a perceived need for regulation.

Also I think it will go down the lines of in-house training as not many people seem very willing to start out their careers with a qualification that leads to only one particular job. Generic engineering HNC/D and degrees still seem like the popular choice compared to Eastwood park's offering.

Although it's interesting to note that there's quite a few trusts missing from the list of accredited training centres or they don't train in everything. Is this a lack of support in management similar to the questioning whether to join in their employees?

Bill I don't think you'll find the situation similar to yours around the country. It does seem that what one trust does will be totally different to another.

Begrudgingly I've just filled in the form with my cheque today, only because if I want to leave the dark side and return to the NHS it should make life easier.
At least IPEM will have had to fund their Christmas party without my money this year.

@Neil: it's got absolutely nothing to do with unions, you [censored]!

The truth of the situation is that the VRCT is, shall we say, "yesterday's news". As is so often the case, groups like that are "way behind the curve" about what is actually going on in the Real World!

Hey, I'm agreeing with Chris. Happy Days!

Meanwhile, perhaps it's time that someone came on here and reminded folk what the VRCT is actually for. That is, what does it do, and what benefits arise for those shelling out their subs?

If it's simply a register (a list of names) ... why don't we just use Huw's users' list?

Or (better yet), how about everyone bungs me ten quid every year, and I'll make up my own list, and publish it right here for all to see and admire?

@Rob: what's that? Leaving the Dark Side to seek out a cushy berth in the NHS? Shame on you, Mate, shame!

I was not implying anything to do with Unions, just the thought of demarkation lines.

Every profession, and in particular professions within the NHS, are all regulated and recognised. So why not us who work in the world of EBME?

It is just a way to regulate who can practise biomedical engineering within the NHS infrastructure. Nurses, physiotherapists, doctors, estates managers etc. all go through regulation... never mind constant changes to it with time.

Go down a street in the UK and carry out a survey with the general public and ask them if they know the job title of someone who repairs and carries out safety testing on medical equipment within the NHS? Will Joe Public know the answer? It would be a minimum, if any.

I say regulation is a good thing, and it is about time the technical staff of EBME departments around the UK deserve some recognition for the services they do on a daily basis.

Also, when the registration becomes compulsory and not voluntary, it is going to cost a lot more than £10 per year. It will be money well spent for the future of biomeds.

And you think being registered is going to give you public recognition, dream on. If you want public recognition join the theatre or a circus.

I don't think it's a case of public recognition Neil, the public probably don't know what half the employees in the NHS really do except for nurses and doctors.

At the moment anybody can buy a cheap PAT test course and set themselves up as a medical equipment service company. Hopefully if the registration becomes compulsory this should set standards for the industry and stop dumbing down of the job.

If someone after registration came into effect, in the UK said they were a clinical technologist and they weren't registered they'd be committing fraud
The question is how would it effect the private sector, there's already examples in the NHS of the need for registration within the NHS, but university staff not needing registration within the same building.

What if they said they were a "PAT Tester"?

Get real, guys. Joe Public doesn't give a damn about who fixes the kit. And why should he?

By the way, surely I'm not the only one who noticed that piece in the news recently about the baby dying in an incubator with a "do not use after ..." (such and such a date). I seem to remember advising against that sort of sticker many times in the past. Hostage to fortune, and all that (despite being pretty obvious, I would have thought). Now some poor [censored] will be in the [censored]!


Well, we can understand that. But you can see how the grieving parents might see things a little differently. How would "registration" have helped there, I wonder?

But why all this need for recognition? Are we so insecure that we can't be trusted to simply get on with the job?

No, you missed my point entirely there. Much rather have the regulation than recognition.

Sorry to labour the point, David, but (as mentioned so many times before) we are already regulated:-

1) As technicians, by the Engineering Council
2) By the terms of our Employment Contracts
3) By the Rule of Law (just like everyone else)

Well if they say their a PAT Tester and just PAT Tests that's alright but you know there's some companies who are just lick and stick guys or as we've seen here they give it a quick function check and tell the staff to ship it to the local hospital for repair! Honestly the clinical staff could probably do that for themselves.

Then again your entering the territory of is it OK to just PAT test medical equipment or should it be tested to medical equipment standards? (60601-1, IEC 62353)

Now here it doesn't matter if registration was in place or not, you can guarantee that the HSE probably did a full investigation into the situation and checked if the person servicing it was competent. It seems registration just tries to do that before the accident happens and the HSE get involved. (of course if this was a RIDDOR reported incident, it seems the incubator didn't kill the baby, it just didn't help cure it)

There's a quote by John Ruskin that they display in a local sandwich shop that answers this. You can always guarantee that somebody will try and cut corners and do the job a bit cheaper, what you have to watch out for is that standards aren't sacrificed.


The thing is not everybody so called 'servicing' medical equipment are technicians, some of them look highly suspiciously like salesmen!

If your employed to do something without training, you do it without training, it doesn't really do anything does it!
The Rule of Law only really takes effect in this case after you've broke it!

You obviously had so much fun with that post, Chris, that it would be a bit churlish of me to pick it to pieces.

Anyway, I'll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions.

@Chris, going back to your statement that all biomed depts. are different is exactly why the VRCT training scheme will not work. We need recognition for ih-house training.

@biomed, regulation is probably a good thing but it has to be appropriate. Have a look at the code of conduct for Incorporated Engineer and Eng Tech on the IET website. It contains statements about not causing harm to others by your actions and about maintaining your competency through CPD much in the same way as the VRCT does. In fact I reckon that they may have pinched some of the wording from the IET's code of conduct.
I'll have a look for the webpage and post a link later.

Here's a link to the IET's code of conduct IET . Section 8 is particularly appropriate to what we do.

Myself, I'm still in mourning for the passing of the S.X-Ray.T.

We had a BAOR Chapter at one time, you know.

I really can not understand how the VRCT or any other 'old boys club' can improve standards of work. All you have to do is send in a copy of some bits of paper with a reference that you work in the industry and you are in. In my experience of work, it is the engineers with good character, rather than the paper chasers, that delivered good practice.

Hey Barney! You're back (where have you been?)!

Yet again, I agree with what you're saying.

But I would suggest that Registration is not about improving (raising, or even maintaining) standards. Apparently - and I cite earlier posts on this thread by others - it's supposed to be about Regulation (but don't ask me how) and, er, Recognition (for those who are seemingly concerned about such things).

Regulation? How? Well I think we are supposed to be impressed that a wayward tech could be struck off the list! I wonder how that will work? A tribunal? Or being judged by one's peers? My Goodness ... just imagine!

Have a look at the hpc site makes some interesting reading, particular the CPD section. A big difference between what the VRCT have been doing and what would happen if it went compulsory! Random checks to see if your keeping up to date and have a look at some of the things people have been struck off for. Real strange one is Paramedic suspended for eating on the job!

Now that is strict you don't get the IET or VRCT doing checks.

That's supposed to be the Manager's job (or, if not, then why have them?)!

Hasn't the message reached you yet, Chris? The People of England have rejected the Nanny State (or worse) where everyone spends half of each day (at least) "checking up" on others.

Jobsworths are not welcome, Mate.

I notice that no-one on here has yet mentioned the demise of CRB checks that presumed that half the nation were criminals (potentially, at least)! So here I am ... mentioning it! Honest, decent, folk resent that sort of thing you know.

Just as honest, decent, technicians resent those who "snoop" about, checking on their CPD status, what's in their lunch box, or whether they are wearing clean underwear today.

well Geoff although I haven't seen the HPC on a list of quangos it is being retained by the current government. Although it will be changing it's name because their adding social workers to their remit, so at least the current government doesn't seem to be classified it as part of the Nanny State. Compare this with some of the others that the Government are scrapping like the HPA!

Care to comment again once you have caught up with today's news articles, Chris? Here are a couple of tasters:-


But no doubt "lessons will be learned" (again).


Note that again ... "Nothing is happening".

That's the reality, Mate. So why should the Register be anything but yet another toothless tiger (albeit a tiger able to tick boxes, and, er ... generate "careers" for those in charge of it)?

Morning Geoff!
Feels like enforced regulation without adequate representation in the decisions that are made.
I would venture that whilst the idea of VRCT seems the way forward, a lot of work needs to be done to ensure the direction is correct. I have followed this thread with interest; I feel no particular need to be classed as a "Clinical" Technologist or likewise part of the Allied Healthcare Profession or be lumped in with Healthcare Scientist's. I don’t profess to hold clinical knowledge or have aspirations to be a "Nurse". I fix medical equipment, and find that the available routes for New Entrants to the VRCT, who perform my job, aren’t very well thought through. Hopefully, this will change.

As for the demise of CRB Checks? Working with Children or vulnerable Adults? Essential, I would have thought?
Outside that group, not really needed.

Mornin' Sean


Perhaps. But just what is the idea (in concise terms, if you please)?

Or is it just another wishy-washy vague do-good tree-hugging kinda feels OK thingy (a bit like Call Me Dave's "Big Society" idea*)?

But (before you answer) may I first refer you back to Bill's post about the IET? See also IPEM.**

As you indicate (and in case anyone else has forgotten), we are Engineering Technicians!

* But one that he can't articulate, unfortunately.
** Other engineering associations, institutes and societies are available.

The Voluntary Register of Clinical Technologists (VRCT) was founded in August 2000 with the primary task of taking forward the case for regulating the Clinical Technologist profession. In October 2004 the Health Professions Council (HPC) agreed that the Clinical Technologist profession should be regulated. In the intervening years the VRCT has been working with the Department of Health to ensure that all of the necessary requirements are in place for the regulation of the profession to go ahead.

The above is the first paragraph on the VRCT website homepage.

Can't get any plainer english than that.

Do you class yourself as a Healthcare Scientist ? ( Err, No)
As well as using medical equipment, do you service / maintain or repair it ? (Yes)

Then you are not by definition a Clinical Technologist in the accepted sense of the word.

Cant get anymore direct than that.

What does a 'clinical technologist' do, if the pay is good can I be one?

a) That's a moot point
b) You can be one too (if you like)

OK, so someone a long time ago came up with the description of clinical technologist. We are all known by different job titles. It depends where you work in the country. That is a fact that we have lived with for some time.

From the VRCT application guidlines:

CRITERIA FOR ENTRY TO THE REGISTER

The Voluntary Register of Clinical Technologists is open to all persons employed or
seeking employment in a technical role in the field of medical physics, clinical
engineering, medical equipment maintenance or medical equipment manufacturing.
Individuals who wish to join the Register are likely to come from the following settings: -

1. Those employed in the public or private healthcare sectors, and, who work in medical
physics, clinical engineering, medical equipment maintenance or medical equipment
manufacturing. Job titles may vary significantly but may include:-

Clinical Technologist, Dosimetrist, Medical Technologist, Nuclear Medicine
Technician, Biomedical Repair Technician, Medical Physics Technician, Medical
Electronics Technician, Mould Room Technician, Medical Technical Officer, X-ray
Engineer, Rehabilitation Engineer, Medical Equipment Technician, Service Engineer,
Renal Technician. This list is not exhaustive.

Criteria for Entry by occupation is one thing, the approved primary route of Entry for those who do not meet the Grand Parenting Provision eligibility is another issue completely.

"You must have successfully completed an approved vocational education programme, or, an approved training scheme.
There are currently two approved training schemes run by the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) and the Association of Renal Technologists (ART). A list of approved vocational education programmes can be found on the VRCT website"

Currently the VRCT has only 2 approved training scheme providers, namely Institute
of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) and the Association of Renal
Technologists (ART)

As yet, there are no accreditated training schemes available on a national basis.
Some serious thought needs to be given to entry routes after 31 December 2011.

Glad it's not a exclusive list as I've just noticed HR have given me yet another title, apparently I'm now a 'Clinical Engineering Technician'. Yes they do like to change the titles in the NHS.

As for the lack of training centres check out IPEM but as I said earlier, there does seem a lot of Trusts missing from the list.

Also Geoff I accept that incidence do get overlooked by the HPC but then again what good has IPEM or the IET ever done in this area? When was the last time they actually asked you to prove that your abiding by their rules? Basically the rules stated earlier are no better than the VRCT, as long as you pay your money your still a member of either of them.

Also if your not a member of either your not bound by their rules, so saying your governed by Engineering council is pointless.

I have nothing further to add to this thread.

It is obvious that folk here are divided into two camps, neither of which is likely to change sides.

Personally I am not in any of the organisations mentioned, but did manage to get T.Eng (now I.Eng) added to my name many (many) years ago. The society I was once a member of is now long gone, but although I never got anything out of it myself, it was governed by (what is now called) the Engineering Council.

So what? Big Deal. Ho hum. Finitto.

Hi Biomed,

You have quoted the intro to the VRCT which states that it started in 2000. My colleagues and I only found out about it in 2005. What were they doing in the meantime? Certainly not garnering opinions of the people whom they intend to lord-it over (sorry, regulate). As far as I can tell they never sought the opinions of anyone outside of Medical Physics! We only found out about the VRCT when we merged with Medical Physics, this despite working in the same City and being a bigger department.

p.s. Biomed, will you be changing your profile name if you become a Clinical Technologist? We might try and get the title Biomed protected.

OK, Bill ...

... just to let you know that the Domain Name www.clinicaltechnologist.co.uk is still available.

Do you fancy chipping in?

Just looked at the list of training centres / NHS hospitals.
Us uneducated lot in Liverpool don't appear to have any training centres near us.

A rough head count of departments in my area gives a number of engineers working on medical equipment ( notice the devious way I avoided using bul****t job titles there) of about 80.

Not an insignificant number, covering very large NHS Trusts at highly skilled levels.

These "departments" do communicate with each other so the question is "Why is there no recognised training centre" in this area?"

I'm sure the answer will come back along the lines of " ..well those areas were prepared to do something about it ..."

Surely IPEM/VRCT/IET should be the ones doing something about it NOW

What has been the difference in those areas having training centres when other major areas have no access to further/continued professional development

Surely that is a question best addressed to the Boards of the Trusts involved, and/or the National Health Service as a whole?

I doubt very much that the VRCT will ever be in a position to operate (or even sponsor) training establishments. Undertakings such as that require serious funding, I would have thought.

Perhaps EBME managers need to be a bit more forceful about gaining funding for training, and then pool resources with Trusts nearby as required.

These are questions, I believe, that need answering.

We are talking here of eventually having a "closed" occupation.
This is patently evident from the items already discussed on this topic.

Surely demographics shouldn't come into it at this point.

I would have thought a driving factor of the "herberts" associated with this would have been to have a nationwide structure, delivering equal opportunities for a a job/role that is seen as having importance.

Board of Trusts would not give a sh** at this time as to a "future" requirement for a very small range of "specialists"

The list of training centres seem to me to be either Clinical Engineering or Medical Physics centred, not exclusively.

These departments are headed up by people who may have more "clout" in their organisation, be a large department already and also get involved in training now.

If this is going to gain momentum and benefit what we do now, in the future, then steps have to be taken to ensure that this process is Fair, Deliverable, Resourced, Open and Accessible.

I've said before and I'll say it again, the people who want this to come off need to get out their and empower the people doing this work now!!

But they will if you expect to have recognised training available on your doorstep.

Falfield is in Gloucestershire (GL12 8DA).

The People are already empowered (or rather, could be) if they really wanted it.

1) How many techs? How much (money) would we need to collect from each tech in order to set up a training structure of our own?

2) How about a possibility of a travelling training programme (that is, Trusts lay on the facilities and accommodation, our trainers come to you)?

3) There used to be excellent factilities at Capital Medical in Kidderminster? What became of all that? The set-up was in place. Why didn't we club together and buy it?

4) Training courses need to be structured to meet both local and present-day needs in general. They also need to be recognised by appropriate certifying bodies. If courses are designed by people who know what they are doing, then that shouldn't present too much of a problem.

5) Better yet, do it in partnership with an existing set-up (eg, Eastwood Park). That way, things stay current, and all the boxes get ticked!

6) Where is the leadership for (on) issues like these?

7) Why don't we thresh out the basic training requirements right here? But in a fresh thread, please.

8) When are we going to start (will it ever happen)?

Sorry, what was that you were saying?

I was referring to the thread in its earlier form.

As you can see, it's morphed a bit since then.

That is, it "progressed" from talking about the Register, and who has forked out fees yet again, towards training requirements for (supposedly) new entrants into the "trade", and continuity training for those already in it!

Meanwhile, do you have anything to add to the post I've just made?

Has any one from the VRCT come on to this forum to defend/explain their position as to why this is necessary and what are their future plans regarding representation, training etc. There are many people defending the register and just as many who see no point in the register, but where are the people who control the register?

If you look back through the annals of the (many) previous threads on this issue, Neil, you will find that certain well-known personalities behind the VRCT idea have indeed come on here, and put their case (in the main) most eloquently.

See also the VRCT website. Or, if you prefer, the IPEM website.

Those who subscribe to the MPE mailbase will have noticed a lot of activity about the HPC registering Herbalists - some quite amusing. There were also several pointed comments about the continued lack of registration of technologists.
RoJo

See VRCT - A death knell

link
See VRCT - A death knell

Does anyone else tune in to "Any Answers" on Radio Four?

There was a bloke on there talking about the severe shortage of dental technicians (folk making dentures etc.) in the UK. He was talking in terms of numbers falling in recent years from 15,000 down to 5,000 (or thereabouts).

How come? Guess what? He reckons it is due to Registration!

That is, the requirement to get on the register has put off new entrants into the game; and seen off those who were already practising, but without the "required" qualifications. OK, you could say that standards are being raised ... amongst the depleted numbers still soldiering on!

The guy could have been talking rubbish, for all I know. But he also made the point that (even if a tech already in the trade found the will to seek - retrospectively, even - the training needed to have the boxes ticked), there are very few colleges offering the training (I think he mentioned four).

But I found this quote from 2006:-


Could this sort of thing happen to medical equipment engineering technicians? Will compulsory registration result in a few (that is, a reduced number of) "quality techs" and see the rest simply give up (or perhaps try something else) or retire!

The only positive spin I can put on that sort of scenario is that, with dwindling numbers of techs, but with the amount of kit still growing day-on-day, it will become a "seller's market" (so perhaps, at long last, we might even see some financial rewards commensurate with our skill sets).

* Yes, those guys have been "renamed" as well ... but the article quoted from was talking about technicians making dentures etc.

A personal view:

I have worked in the Medical Engineering profession for well over 30 years and I am becoming more and more exasperated at the nonsense that is being written about the profession. We all have a right to our opinions and to express those freely within the confines of the law of the land. However, in doing so, do we not also have a responsibility to ensure that what we are saying is based around a modicum of fact?

I read many criticisms about the VRCT to which I have listened and reacted in a positive way. However, whilst some on this Forum make excellent, well-founded arguments others do not. Often those expressing opinions seem to be ill-informed, possibly based on an inability to actually want to read, listen to, or, understand what is written and reported. Or perhaps, this happens because their prejudices or insecurities are so overwhelming.

The thrust of some of the responses to this thread, once again, would appear to be to deride and ridicule the VRCT and therefore its members. Throwing up copious “facts” and making accusations about mismanagement, financial probity, bullying and intimidation (to name but four). It would appear that the overall objective of some is to undermine and debunk all professional activities which seek to promote the Medical Engineering profession positively.

As a result, because of the negativity, what we could end up with is a non-profession which needs little education, training or indeed, regulation. This is because some argue that the knowledge and skills they require are at a very low level, are non-clinical, not safety-critical and certainly are not scientific in nature.

So medical engineering is non-clinical and not safety critical? Thus the actions taken by a medical engineering technologist, whilst performing repair, maintenance, calibration, electrical safety tests or other equipment management activities, have no bearing on patient safety, diagnosis or treatment? You never venture into the clinical environment and examine patient-connected equipment? There is no evidence of maintenance induced incidents? All completely incorrect: almost every action you take will have a direct bearing on the well being of the patient! Other healthcare professionals and patients (probably without knowing) rely on you performing your role competently! If this is not the case, your work is either heavily supervised or perhaps you may not fully understand what the implications are of failing to carry out your role to an appropriate standard. Thus, does that mean you shouldn’t worry about the concerns that patients, the public and other healthcare professionals may have around the safety of medical devices? I believe the opposite to be true.

So medical engineering doesn’t involve science? No need to understand and apply basic physics; atomic theory; electricity and magnetism; anatomy and physiology; mathematics; etc, etc? Therefore, because science is not involved, the work the profession undertakes does not need the assurance that each individual has understanding and competence in science and hence engineering? I believe the opposite to be true.

Furthermore, the argument continues: no need to care of professional matters, such as, ensuring that appropriate basic training is being delivered or that your competence can be externally and independently assured as safe and effective. I believe the opposite to be true.

As a result, your argument must be: “in the NHS, according to Agenda for Change and in line with the qualifications and skills that we define are required; we operate at Assistant Practitioner level and should be paid at Band 4 or below!” In this time of financial difficulty many an administrator will look on that statement as manna from heaven – time to save money, reorganisation here we come! And yes it does happen; many colleagues up and down the country have already been down banded to reflect similar interpretations made by managers. The same scenario may also be repeated in the wider healthcare industry.

If you share that philosophy, that is fine, because perhaps you are not a Clinical Technologist; therefore, there is agreement here. As a consequence, there is no need for you to worry further about being called Clinical Technologist or, indeed, being one – unless you want to train-up in the future? But then you may have to join a training scheme or get a clinical technology degree and be prepared to say the words “medical physics” without having a paroxysm!

The irony is that many, who have been in the profession for a long time and have qualifications which are at a lower level than those required now, will be very good in their role. If subjected to external scrutiny they would probably pass with flying colours. Your skills, knowledge and experience are extremely important and essential to the continued well-being of the profession. It is just a question of having confidence in your role and what you are capable of and, reflecting positively on the view you have of your professional world. Accept that the NHS and the healthcare industry has changed significantly over the last 10 years and that the bar has been raised in terms of what is now required in terms of qualifications for those starting out in the profession and the need to have assured competence. That doesn’t mean that what you have to offer is not good enough but you could be undervaluing yourself! You should not fear change: embrace it, use your energies positively; argue the importance of your professional role in maintaining patient safety and equipment effectiveness; join a professional body and work towards improving and developing the profession rather than talking it down.

By the way, just to stay with the thread, I have renewed my VRCT membership for 2011.

Thanks for coming on here with that well-written piece, Jim.

Very good ... but where are the training courses?

Welcome back Jim. It's good to know that you are listening in. It would be great if more of your council (Assessors' Panel) would contibute to this forum. One of the biggest issues many of us have is the lack of communication with the VRCT. This forum must be one of the best ways of getting your views out there. I'm sure we'd appreciate input from other members of the assessors' panel on many of the threads found on this site whether it be management issues, equipment issues or even jokes, we need to know that you guys are human after all.

As to the content of your posting, I still beleive that we are poles apart in our views on how best to push forward our profession(s). I do hope that the advent of Quality Assured Voluntary Regulation allows us the opportunity to reassess what has gone before and try to create a more open, accessible and relevant body to represent ALL our cohorts whether they be from the NHS, MES or other maintenance bodies.

Geoff

Thanks for your feedback. In the NHS many Departments are accredited to deliver the IPEM Training Scheme for Clinical Technologists and deliver the competence based training programmes devised by IPEM members which leads to registration with the VRCT. In private healthcare, as you well know, many organisations provide comprehensive training programmes for their staff. We are still trying to encourage a number of them to become IPEM accredited.

The Modernising Scentific Careers programme has just recently published its Practitioner Training Programme for Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering which includes a Medical Engineering training manual and syllabus. To gain access to this you need to follow this link to NHS Networks:

NHS Networks

You need to register but this can be completed very quickly. Once done look for the Modernising Scientific Careers Network. Enjoy there is a lot to read!

Jim

If that's the case, Jim (and I don't doubt it), I can't help wondering why so many guys working in the NHS come on here moaning about (what they see as) the lack of training "pathways" ... and all the rest.

I can only assume that, busy as techs generally are, they just don't have the time to keep up with all those (many) NHS-sponsored websites. As usual (always), when it comes to quality, "Less is More"!

Just to change tack a little ... my own interest is more from the perspective of those of who labour in the so-called "Private Sector" (aka, the Dark Side), and more specifically, the self-employed or freelance technician. Are such as those (us) supposed to be included in all this? Or, as I myself strongly suspect, is the whole thing really just another NHS "initiative".

Biomedbill

Thanks for your feedback too. I am afraid that I can't speak for my VRCT colleagues and their reasons for not posting although I understand that some have done so in the past. We are all very busy people. Like you I end up posting on a Saturday afternoon (when there is no rugby being played!). Also as I explained it is difficult to respond when what you say can be completely ignored or derided. We do try to keep our website up to date with the latest developments but again time can be a problem.

You may not agree with the way we are progressing our objectives but you seem to want the same end point but in an organisation which respresents only Medical Engineering. I still believe that Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering professionals are stronger when working together and have much in common. It takes a lot of effort to run an organisation and splitting up into our constituent disciplines would make this a lot harder for everyone involved (and need many more volunteers). Additionally, I believe that the vast majority of our Clinical Scientist colleagues who work in Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering fully support their Technologist colleagues and their collective professional aims.

Time will tell and it may well be that further down the road we have to take a different tack. If that proves to be the case we will do what is necessary and hope by then that individuals like you are on board influencing from the inside rather than commenting at the periphery.

Jim

Geoff, whether or not you like what we are doing and the way that we do it you are included. Although the VRCT heavily emphasises the NHS, those in the private sector are an essential part of its membership. It just so happens that the vast majority work for the NHS.

We want you with us.

Jim

Geoff as the new owner I would be happy to negotiate a price!

Regards

Jim

Congratulations, Jim!

I believe that the real question here is what would you have paid if someone else (like me, for instance) had bought it? Or even, how much should I ask for pointing it out?


That's very kind of you, Jim. If I were a younger man, or just starting out, I would join in the fun ... but there's no mileage in it for me personally now. And I just don't have the time to participate, anyway. As always, I remain an interested outsider, looking in.

Meanwhile, I've just heard the term "analysis paralysis". It would seem to succinctly sum up what's going on here on this thread. I would urge all concerned (and as I have said recently) to "just get on with it". Let's see some results!

But ... has Billy paid his subs yet?

I'll donate ten quid if they actually find the Higgs boson.

Geoff,

This is a link to the exact page Jim was referring to Practitioner Training Programme . Hope all the dark side members sign up!

Looks like a load of baboon speak to me, Mate.

Meanwhile, the Lords of Darkness much prefer to take blokes able to "hit the ground running", and certainly don't have either the time or the money to have people away on courses half the time.

Interesting read.....
Though frankly I don’t think we will be overwhelmed with new applicants to the Medical Engineering trade post December 31st looking at the proposed entry requirements.
Considerable obstacles to be overcome for a Band 4 post.
Irrespective of whatever job title we choose, the educational benchmark for entry may have risen, but the prospect of attracting new blood decreases when faced with the limited opportunities for appointment or progression in the foreseeable future.

As has been pointed out, we are in danger of becoming a closed shop.

To tell the truth I agree with Jim on the philosophy of the VRCT, it is just the way that it is a Voluntary label that is being forced onto some in the country. ie Bullied into it.

The problem I have with it is as I have stated before the cost, not today but in a few years time when it is compulsary and the fat cats have got their claws in. Just like the RCN registration has gone in the last few years and we complain about the thieveing bankers.

The other problem is the interpertation of training. If a training plan was produced encompassing the training needs of the basic embe/medphysics body and modules added for other things then great. This has to also be taken with the need for manufacturer courses and not what I have seen in some areas with one person trained and everyone using their books. Not the safest practice but you all know it happens. Whos the blame going to land with.

What we do not want with this is the closed shop mentality that I have seen. Oh you dont have a medical qualification so you aint coming in.

As with everything there is always the pros and cons and the choice should be with the individuals until a clear agenda is shown.

The Modernising Scientific careers literature is probably the most poorly written literature, certainly not going to get an award for clear english.

Although Bill, it certainly won't effect dark side members as this is a NHS only scheme. Although I've heard it's one thing that held back the VRCT so perhaps it will indirectly as the VRCT will have to adjust around it and some private sector companies copy the NHS's pay structure.

As for the Lords of Darkness Geoff, I must admit over the years in comparision you have become the standard of excellence, with some in the private sector being a good advert for regulation.

The Acid Test!

For those who don’t feel the need to be registered on the VRCT (which is all we have available) even when they have both qualifications and years of experience, I would ask them to undertake the following.

Having repaired a piece of vital life support equipment, return it back to the Clinical users such as a senior nurse or Anaesthetist. Engage in conversation, make mention of the fact that there is a national register for biomeds but you don’t feel the need to be registered. Seek their support for your stance.

I suspect that most clinicians would have assumed that the likes of us that care for vital equipment would already be registered and regulated.

It may have taken us 2 decades to get to this point, but now we should push on and make the move to a medical profession. It’s not going to be easy, but it will be worthwhile for patients, the NHS and us in the long term.

If you want to become a medic, Mate ... go right ahead and (re)train.

Meanwhile, those of us who are happy enough to remain as mere fixers of kit will simply carry on ... as engineering technicians.

Yet again Geoff when you have no answer you resort to cheap personal remarks.

Perhaps after 8,903 post we are left to think "Empty vessels make the most noise"

I think the real Acid Test would actually be when you stand in front of the surgeon who's complaining that their equipment has been playing up, they mention something clinical and you open your mouth and say the immortal words 'I just fix things'

Yes that would make you look a idiot

Junior grade staff are mere fixers!

Chris, you can say "I just fix things and I am registered to do so" would that please the surgeon ????

Now thinking back Neil I think this is a Engineering thing, when I was at University the lecturer previously worked at British Airospace knew a bit about how pilots fly planes, even on a recent episode of Aircrash investigation it was reported that a engineer had been called to the cockpit to see if he had any suguestions how to relight the engines.

Even before I came to the health sector my previous job required me to know a bit about the application of the equipment as well as the engineering side. Here also when you started they use to send you on the Philips Biomedical measurements course to get an understanding of the clinical side. I think you need just enough application knowledge so when you talk to the customer you don't seem a clueless prat!

Although long time ago now at one of my previous employments they did have people who just knew engineering principles. They were called test technicians or bench technicians, highly boring job as you were just fixing similar faults all day, didn't need many qualifications and the pay was crap. Perhaps those who just want to fix things can just fix the simple things like nebs and Omrons?

Mornin’ Dave, Chris ...

Despite being "empty vessels" and/or "clueless prats", some of us are not too proud to fix kit (whether simple or grand), and have been able to resist any temptation of falling into the trap of trying to become a "pretend medic".

I don’t recall ever being challenged by any surgeon (and I dare say Neil has had similar experiences). If you are competent, it generally becomes apparent.

Speaking for myself I never went to university. But despite that, I still manage to do OK when it comes to grammar, and spelling.

Meanwhile, I hope you have a good day chatting with (impressing) the surgeons.

OK, that’s all ... the kit awaits.

If I have any 'clueless prats' in my department I will ask them to close the door on the way out.

Clunk!

Here's a thought for Dave and Chris, while you are waiting for the registration to become compulsory "what is happening with your registration cash" ?

Surely everyone in this job knows just a little of how the piece of equipment they are working on actually works in the nursing environment. If they dont then they are not a proper techie as we are a bred that wants to know how things work. We have to know how the operators use the equipment so we can tell them its finger trouble or that their brain has not sent the incorrect signals to their digits (for those wanting to sound more intelligent:).
As for the standing in front of the surgeon, I am sure they have the good sense to know that the tech whether registered or not is there to fix their kit and let them get on with it.
What makes a registered tech any better than an unregistered one can someone please tell me what they can do that the unregistered one cant. If I have a certificate from a manufacturer then is that not enough to work on the kit. At present the nurses are going through compentancy training, have the VRCT thought of this.

'Foolproof systems dont take into account the ingenuity of fools' Gene Brown.

obviously not as when anybody mentions the clinical side Geoff responds that they should retrain as a medic and that he's just a fixer.

I would state the simple example of the Bipap Vision where usually the operator doesn't set the alarms a suitable pressure above the inspiratory pressure. It would seem that quite a lot of us would do a visual inspection and see if it was setup correctly, whereas Geoff and his band of fixer would just take it away, where it would go backward and forward from the workshop with the staff starting make assumptions on his ability. (medical staff are never wrong, until you show them and then their just unaware of the issue!)

Why are you making this stuff "personal", Chris?

Have you run out of valid points to make?

Well since David accussed you of the same a few posts ago and your now moaning the same thing I'll take it your out of valid points instead!

I think we'll leave it at that and leave the next response for people to say if they've re-newed or not.

Do you mean accused? ... and you're? And "moaning about"?

Run out of valid points? No, I could keep up responding to such nonsense all day (easy as it is to do), if only I had the time.


No, I haven't.

see, personal again Geoff, only 2 minutes left of lunch break so unlike some people who can stay on here all day composing their posts you'll just have to put up with a hurried post.

Personal? No way, Chris. Don't tell me you're a sensitive soul, Mate.

But if folk can't understand your posts, how are they supposed to respond to them? Unless, that is, you're not seeking a response at all (but just making some sort of inane comment, or other).

Oh ... is it lunch-time, then? That's it ... I'm off to put on the kettle!

Anytime I go away...