|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
#20778 - 31/01/05 12:52 PM
Re: Registration and Consultation
|
Bioman
Sage
Registered: 19/02/03
Posts: 358
Loc: UK
|
Dear Kevin
You are right that the HPA became IPSM, but I must correct you on one point. IPSM merged with the Biological Engineering Society (BES) to form IPEM. IPEM has a strong engineering branch represented by the Engineering Group Board (EGB) and can award CEng status in line with Engineering Council guidelines.
In the BES days, there was a strong link between BES and the IEE, I am sure that continues now with IPEM.
Back to your original point, why are we registering Clinical Technologists. Because the work that they do can have an impact on patient care and safety. I note that you are registered as a Clinical Scientist with HPC (CS3597).
Let me ask you a question, why is it ok for Clinical Scientists to be registered with the HPC and not Clinical Technologists?
I have just read your website, on your point about glass ceilings especially within Medical Physics department. There are many departments with HoD who are engineers, if you take the time to research you will find the following engineers who are also Head of Medical Physics,
Our friend Alex who is Head of Physics at Dewsbury
Dr Chris Callicott, Head of Physics at Bradford
Dr Andy Nevil, Head of Physics at Plymouth
Dr Stuart Meldrum, Head of Physics at Norwich
Ian Eversden, Head of Physics at St George's
I'm sure there are others.
Only last week the IPEM green sheets are advertising two C Grade Clinical Engineering posts at Staffordshire and Addenbrooke's
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#20780 - 31/01/05 01:18 PM
Re: Registration and Consultation
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Clinical Scientists can have dual registration both as Clinical Scientists and Engineers (most Physics Graduates working in Clinical Engineering seem to aspire to becoming Chartered Engineers). But nowadays it is not so easy for fully qualified Engineers, working in healthcare, to achieve this as a result of the Clinical Scientist registration/regulation process and the fact that Medical Physics Departments do not seem to favour Engineers (read as Engineering Graduates) actually being trained and subsequently employed as Clinical Engineers. Shame that those Engineers who are employed in EBME and Medical Physics on grades other than Clinical Scientist grades will remain classified as Technologists despite their qualifications and experience. You could say one result of regulation is that it will continue to keep fully qualified registered Engineers, actually trained and qualified to a high level in Engineering, out of the Clinical Engineering Profession in which training and selection is dominated by Clinical Scientists.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#20781 - 31/01/05 03:42 PM
Re: Registration and Consultation
|
Kevin Haylett
Novice
Registered: 28/01/05
Posts: 13
Loc: Manchester
|
Dear Bioman,
Thank you for your information as to why the name was changed from IPSM to IPEM.
These are good points. However, on the whole many people including myself recognize a divide, as described; between engineering and medical physics based departments and many do not fit the medical physics department model with a medical engineering section or sub department. Many colleagues including myself have felt the glass ceiling that occurs within medical physics based departments - This is my personal experience! I would indeed like to know the percentage of medical physics departments that are headed by engineers. If you have any more detailed information please let me know.
Regarding research into this subject, I am only one person representing a single point of view. This is my concern i.e. that I do not have enough information and there is no overview or picture of medical engineering and how this registration will effect on the industry (including the NHS). I have yet to see any impact studies etc of this proposed registration which I feel should be considered essential when we consider the size and scope of what is being presented.
A major part of engineering is its relationship to the commercial sector including maintenance, servicing and production, costs charges and the business model used etc. It is in this area that I feel the IEE is very strong in. Regarding engineering credentials, the choice of which institution to join etc is a personal preference. I, personally, feel far more comfortable with the IEE due to their long history. However, I am sure that many are happy with IPEM and I also have enjoyed contributing and attending IPEM meetings etc where they have applied. I have no criticisms of IPEM; I simply prefer the IEE and personally feel that it is more relevant for me.
Interestingly, state registration does not mean that you have to be a member of any institution. Once you are state registered, the CPD which is required to maintain ones registration is a personal responsibility and there is no prescribed role for these institutions with the HPC.
Regarding my own clinical scientist registration, I felt this was necessary due to the glass ceiling you mentioned. However, in practice, I do feel that it is really only a repeat of my C. Eng registration.
Many thanks for your thoughts
Kevin
_________________________
Dr K R Haylett PhD,CEng,MIEE
Principal Clinical Scientist
Contract& IT Manager
Medical Engineering
Manchester Royal Infirmary
Oxford Road
Manchester
M13 9WL
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#20783 - 31/01/05 04:21 PM
Re: Registration and Consultation
|
Bob Perkins
Adept
Registered: 20/07/01
Posts: 80
Loc: Yeovil District Hospital
|
Any ideas/guesses on what the ratio of clinical technolgists:Clinical Scientists will be once all the clinical technologists have registered with the IPEM? I suspect that there will be far more technologists. Will this influence the future direction/focus of IPEM?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#20784 - 01/02/05 07:14 AM
Re: Registration and Consultation
|
Ken
Master
Registered: 15/03/01
Posts: 204
Loc: Hexham General Hospital
|
Dr Kevin Haylett.
You arque that as electricians and plumbers also can cause harm to patients then the reason for technician registration has not been addressed sufficiently. Does the same argument not apply to all healthcare professions ie why regulate doctors and nurses.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#20786 - 01/02/05 08:52 AM
Re: Registration and Consultation
|
Tony Dowman
Master
Registered: 17/05/01
Posts: 290
Loc: UK
|
Spot on Chris & Ken, was,nt Shipman registered ?? 
Splendid safeguard for his patients !! I don,t Think. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#20787 - 01/02/05 09:37 AM
Re: Registration and Consultation
|
Dave H
Master
Registered: 27/12/01
Posts: 316
Loc: Southport
|
I don't know if this answers Tudor's post, it was explained to me a long time back, that companies who provide a service within an NHS establishment would need to have their tech's registered, i.e service engineers visiting hospitals or third party M.S.V. types based in a hospital.
If you work for a company, based at their own premises you would not need to be registered.
Don't know if this is true but it was a point put across by the Personnel Dept when I worked for one of those nasty M.S.V. companies.
My problem with this whole scenario relates to the Medical Physics / Medical Engineering thing.
I'm a Medical Engineer, work in Medical Engineering (EBME as we call it), and do not consider myself of having any links with Medical Physics.
I've done this for the past 16 years and it works for my liking, and it is also the normal practice in the area where I live.
I know there are associations the length and breadth of the UK where Med Phys and EBME are closely linked and everything is rosey in their garden.
I think the two jobs are different, the problem is that it is seen that somewhere in the food chain Medical Engineers must have a Clinical Scientist / Physicist as their "god".
I don't subscribe to this.
Let Med Phys do their thing and let Biomeds do their thing.
I have no interest in IPEM, don't feel it represents me, only wants to control me.
I don't have a problem with State Registration, if it develops the career of existing Biomeds, provides proper training and development of new and existing staff, limits the access to people proporting to be experienced in the biomed field to starting a position without validation and concentrates on the nature of the work we do.
"Clinical Technologist" is a term that has been developed to meet the "one size fits all" for pidgeon holing as seems to be the norm now in society (you only have to look at AfC, 8 Bands for 1,000,000 people - good fit) :boggle:
Again a long time back it was put to me that they were thinking of adding suffixs to the registration, SRCT(Biomed)-SRCT(MedPhys)-SRCT(Renal), for example.
Maybe this would aleviate concerns if this was applied.
At least then I would know if I was talking to someone of the same mind-set as myself and if I looked at a training and education path for SRCT(Biomed) then it would be something in my field.
I must admit I took umberance when I first read Kevin's post but with further clarification I can see where he is coming from.
_________________________
Why worry, Be happy!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
48 registered
(D.O.A, Andrew FK, Dicky, shareef, Ceramic Mike, SUZUKI, Kanku, IT, Kawasaki, Apollo11, Chris Watts, Huw, Jonathan Wells, Minitech, Dom Nicosia, DanKel, John Carpenter, Eddie, Panander, Morse, merazoo1, David R, Martin Henley, Eagle, Mark.E, Graham Roberts, 1 invisible)
and 464 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
