Dear all

The following is an extract from an e-mail from a colleague following a discussion of the Registration presentation at the ipem meeting in york earlier this year.

"Further to the agenda item at our last section meeting (including the glib comments that floated around as a result) and from the document circulated by MS on that item I feel it necessary to put pen to paper again on what seems to me to be as productive a process as putting a cat flap in an elephant house as a method of ingress and egress for the aforementioned pachyderms.

It seems to me that this process of registration is not, as those who would seek to introduce it maintain (no pun intended), to "help the patient" (I thought this was everybody's responsibility anyway), but rather to enhance their own profile. It appears to me to be an exercise in self importance. The phrase "an ounce of pretension is worth a tonne of manure" springs conveniently to mind.

For example, surely the repair of............lets say for instance....................... just picking at random you understand.................... pressure relief equipment, yeah, that's a good example, does not require to be carried out by a person in possession of a BSc? Or should it? At the moment the repair of pressure relieving equipment in our area is carried out by two staff, one whose highest qualification is a welding certificate (handy eh?) and the other who has a plethora of certificates none of which are worth the paper they are printed on or bear any relevance to the role he carries out. Should patients be concerned? The repair of this equipment is carried out unsupervised, improvements to the service have been suggested and implemented by these two "unqualified" (according to IPEM) personnel, as has training to both technical and clinical staff, and the delivery of the service has continued to improve despite these "non technologists" being in post. I am not aware that any serious concerns have been raised by either technical or clinical staff as to the "fitness for purpose" (is John Reid back in charge of the NHS?) of these two employees. Or maybe there has been? Surely if AfC, and the resulting KSF that will emerge from individual job descriptions as a result of this, is successful (and properly managed) there should be no reason for an additional system of competence to be put in place? It should be up to individual employers within the healthcare system to make the judgements necessary to ensure that they are employing staff at a sufficient level of competence for the task required. It should be added, before any concerns are raised, that not only was appropriate in house training received on all systems used by our hospital, but that additional training has been received from manufacturers on any subsequent systems introduced.

I have not been backwards in investigating how this issue would affect the service that I (and my colleague) are responsible for (and proud of) delivering. Going so far as to look into the "grand parenting" arrangements under the voluntary registration guidelines. Misinformation, misunderstanding and rumour (the three pillars of wisdom in healthcare it would appear) have been my findings. "We'll get shafted" they cry, "You won't have to worry about that" I hear, "It's the future, trust me" is another. Oh and my personal favourite "It doesn't bother me, I'm retiring". Well, I'm not retiring, I'm not intending to go elsewhere and I've got another 20 years (at least) to go (under present conditions of service), so it would be nice (and surely good practice) to have an informed debate on this subject. Will there be "hoops to jump through"? Will these hoops be moved while we are in the process of jumping through them? Will the hoops be on fire (a la a motorcycle display team)?. Is it worth going on a voluntary register if transfer isn't guaranteed? Obviously not, would seem to be the answer to that one. Will I only need to gain registration if I am applying for another job in healthcare or will I need to be registered to continue in my current role. "


I am posting this to start a debate and to attempt to get a feeling for how others within the EBME community feel. Being so far north we have little contact with others in the community and have no idea how registration is viewed through out the country.

Please feel free to contact me directly if you do not wish to post your thoughts

I would have thought the best way to stimulate debate would be to share opinion as opposed to sending private emails...?

With 20 years to go in a job then I think it's a bit naive if somebody thinks that they can avoid having to "jump through hoops", "develop themselves" and their "job-role" or "enhance their own profile" to meet the changing requirements of the profession or the employer - irrespective of whether or not there's informed debate and guarantees about the future. Inclusion on the VRCT is voluntary.

Could we not have NVQ as the qualification of choice for our profession? That way, we could all start of with NVQ1/2 and then progress through a mixture of on-he-job and manufacturers training schemes.
NVQ is evidence based - you can't get one unless you can show that you can do the job.
Surely, we want people to come into our profession. Registration in its present guise is restrictive, isn't it?

Cheers
Mark

Wouldn't you need teachers, i.e. L4 NVQ, or higher, and degree-qualified individuals with teacher-training to deliver such courses before the qualifications and training will be recognised (rather than having "a plethora of certificates none of which are worth the paper they are printed on")?

I'm tired of this "them and us" attitude when it comes down to a bit of paper that's just part of the requirement to do the job - if you're not up to an HNC, haven't got enough experience and aren't particularly motivated, then you shouldn't expect to get move into the job or have mobility between jobs, in my opinion. The issue here is about individuals who are currently in-post without an HNC - not a degree - the VRCT is interested in HNC if you're already in-post.

Saying that if you're in post and want to stay put I don't think you should be penalised for not having an HNC or being eligible fo the VRCT. There has to be some basis of knowledge, career structure and minimum standards before organised, recognised, training can occur, surely? I thought regulation might set the requirements to achieve this, once and for all, nationally, like it has for other professions.

Then we don't get tradesmen, who're not prepared to learn or take on new skills that are recognised, complaining when they have to develop into Technician and Engineering roles they've been employed in - inappropriately in some cases - and trying to keep others, who are carrying out job roles that do use the background knowledge and skills, down, eh?

As far as I understand, the Government has stated that the minimum requirement for teachers at FE establishments is C & G 7401 Stage 2 (Qualified Teacher of Further Education). Colleges have started asking for this plus suitable subject knowledge - not necessarily a level 4 nor a degree. Interestingly, current regulations do not include university lecturers, who do not have to have any formal teaching qualifications.

The reason I mention this that, if other departments are like this one, there could be many technicians already employed within the NHS with good subject knowledge and suitable teaching qualifications who could deliver the training required. Just a thought.

Good points Mr Eagle but wouldn't L2 teacher status need to be backed-up by higher level qualifications in the technical subject, than those possessed by the learners, in addition to the adult teaching qualification? This means HND/Degree/Postgrad level, probably.

I would be surprised if they didn't have any, plus they're more likely to have a postgraduate qualification than not - hence they'll be qualified and have specialised in their subject.

Individuals with HND/degrees who take on a teaching role would also be inclined towards L3 or L4 teaching Certificates or Diplomas that can be used to give evidence if they go for fully qualified teacher status later-on.

What I was getting at RE: the initial posting is that it's no good knocking BSc, etc, when these people are likely to be the ones in a position to provide recognised training schemes (rather than BS certificates) at the levels we need to turn-out fully qualified technicians.

Mr Ling,

You obviously do not understand the current C & G referencing system - C & G 7401 is a level 4 (HNC level) qualification, which equates to the first year of the Cert. Ed. Likewise, the C & G 7301 is level 3.

Hope this provides some clarity.

Sorry Mr Eagle my reference to L2 should have said Stage 2 (as you posted). Actually I'm on a L3 C&G Diploma course in delivering learning myself so I do actually know the difference. Just a mistake unfortunately.

Despite your interpretation of:

My point is that if you're going to teach at a level that is equivalent to HNC and recognised as such then you need to be qualified to that level at least or higher - otherwise credibility may become an issue I suppose. Not a major difficulty if you have lots of experience though.

Just because a teacher is qualified at L4 C&G in delivering learning doesn't mean that they don't have to have a specialist qualification at an appropriate level in comparison to that they're teaching at - otherwise teachers could teach any specialism they liked at any level, eh?

You could get scenarios where ONC electronics qualified teachers working in FE could be teaching HNC/HND level electronics? Is this credible?

Do we expect the next wave of technicians from Eastern Europe to arrive in the UK complete with all the requirements for registration (whatever they are), I wonder? Just a thought.