Hi, has anyone heard of the meeting that has been organised for the 17th by the DoH to dicuss the regulation of clinical technologists? I can't find any details on the web. Our head of department mentioned it in a meeting with us yesterday (12/10/05).

I received this in my email on 3rd Oct. It was sent out by our local workforce confed rep who received it on 30/9.

"Dear colleague

Can you please forward this note to service managers in your area. This
will also be forwarded to Workforce Commissioners, Trade Unions,
professional bodies and other interested parties.

Meeting to discuss the regulation of clinical engineers including renal
technology and equipment management practitioners

You may be aware that the Voluntary Register of Clinical Technologists
applied to the Health Professions Council (HPC) to become regulated. The
application consisted of practitioners in Medical Physics and Clinical
Engineering. Following the successful application to HPC for extension of
statutory regulation, we in the Department of Health received comments
voicing concern that this is not necessarily the way forward for
practitioners in clinical engineering disciplines. As a result a meeting
was held on 26 November 2004 to discuss the issues. The consensus at that
meeting was that practitioners in clinical engineering would remain part of
the Clinical Technologists group going forward for regulation and that
their education and training would be set at degree level but with flexible
entry routes which support accreditation of prior learning and experience.

The Department of Health is now preparing the public consultation document
and legislation that will take forward this group of practitioners, as part
of a larger healthcare scientist group, for regulation by the HPC. It is
therefore a good time in the process to explain how far VRCT, along with
education providers, and the Department have reached in the process of
making this group fit for regulation, as well as providing an opportunity
for a broader discussion on any concerns that may exist.

Professor Sue Hill, the Chief Scientific Officer, of the Department of
Health will therefore host a further meeting on Monday 17th October 2005
starting at 13.30, in Room 136 Skipton House, 80 London Road, London SE1
6LH to bring you up to speed and to discuss any outstanding issues. The
meeting will include a wide range of stakeholders, including education
providers, service managers and commissioners. As the venue is limited
attendance will be on a first come first served basis.

I would be grateful if you could respond letting me know if you wish to
attend. I attach a map.

Many thanks for your co-operation. I look forward to seeing you there.


Pat Saunders
Regulation
Project Manager
2N35B
Quarry House
0113 254 5787"


As usual with the DoH meetings are held at such short notice it is virtually impossible to get to them.

Anybody going ??

Brian

Is there anybody who attended this meeting willing to give an overview of what was discussed/presented?

Are the administrators of the VRCT in a position to consult with members of the VRCT; to discuss how the process is progressing?

Dear Richard

The Department of Health will soon (end of November) be starting a public consultation process with regard to the regulation of the first group of Healthcare Scientists. This will include Clinical Technologists, Clinical Physiologists, Clinical Perfusions and Clinical Photgraphers. The VRCT is currently working with the Department of Health to finalise a number of documents which will be part of this process. Once these are complete we intend to contact VRCT Registrants to inform them of progress and to encourage them to respond to the public consultation.

Part of this process involves the preparation of documents relating to Scope of Practice, that is, what competencies would you expect a newly qualified Technologists to have, and to the processes which will be applied during the transfer from voluntary to statutory regulation.

Unfortunately I was not able to attend the Department of Health meeting so am unable to comment directly regarding the outcome. I do understand from speaking with others who attended that it was a very positive meeting.

Jim Methven
VRCT Registrar

Thanks for that Jim.

Jim/ Richard,
Can you provide some detailed information on what is happening with the VRCT. My colleagues and I are not signed up to the VR, we have several reservations and questions that have not been answered. The stock response we have had is that we should wait for the public consultation to begin. I feel that the VRCT administration should have consulted ALL biomedical engineers before going public. There is very little information available outside of the realm of medical physics. Talking to other biomeds at training courses and service engineers from medical equipment manufacturers, very few of them know about the VRCT. If the VRCT is to represent all engineers in the medical equipment field then it would be prudent to attempt to contact as many biomeds as possible.

As I understand it, the Clinical Technologist profession would include non engineering personnel, gamma camera operators, mould room technicians and other non specific medical physics technician jobs. Can someone explain what we have in common with them and why we have to be regulated with them?

In defence of the VRCT committee, how are they supposed to have approached all biomeds? The only way to contact people generally if they are members of an organisation eg IPEM, ART etc. and it is these organisations who should disseminate the information. The other option is forums such as this one. the subject of the VRCT etc has been raised before.

As for consulting everybody, isn't that what the consultation period is for?

Regarding other, non-engineering, groups the common criteria is the ability to cause harm to patients, which we all have either directly or indirectly.

Cheers Techman,

I realise that this subject has been raised before but it is an ongoing concern and is probably the most significant issue other than A4C that affects us. The point I was trying to put forward was that the majority of biomeds do not belong to an organisation that is involved in the state registration process. Most biomeds outside of medical physics are unaware of the ramifications of registration.
I would have thought that it was not beyond the means of the VRCT to put together a paper or a flyer that could be sent to the HR departments of most NHS trusts in the UK for dissemination to the appropriate departments.

My concern about waiting for the consultation paper to come out is that it may be too late in the process to make any significant changes. The IPEM and co have been working on this for many years and seem to be entrenched in their views.


The last point you mention, the ability to do harm to patients applies equally to all staff and visitors who have anything to do with the NHS. My point here is that as a group we are big enough to stand on our own feet as a profession run by engineers for engineers. We do not need to concern ourselves with what is going on in the world of nuclear medicine any more than Cardiology for example. We are engineers with limited clinical training whereas the 'physics side are clinicians with a bit of technical knowledge.

I hope you have cured your repeat repeat.

Bill

The Physics side are either engineers or physicists and definately not clinicians.