|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
#23215 - 27/04/07 12:47 PM
Re: VRCT renewal
[Re: KM]
|
techman
Savant
Registered: 03/11/03
Posts: 116
Loc: London
|
Good point KM. I have sent people away even thought the company line was that they had done their internal training (2 weeks) and so are 'fully qualified'.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23223 - 27/04/07 03:59 PM
Re: VRCT renewal
[Re: ]
|
John Stewart
Mentor
Registered: 06/08/04
Posts: 150
Loc: Charing Cross Hospital
|
Actually the DoH and HPC white consultation documents refer to external organisations as well but I suppose you haven't read the various consultation documents, eh?
Richard do you have any links to these documents? When I put VRCT into the HPC site search nothing comes up.
_________________________
There are things that are known and there are things that are unknown. In-between there are doors.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23224 - 27/04/07 04:05 PM
Re: VRCT renewal
[Re: John Stewart]
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I think I still have copies - I can send you the electronic documents if you like. One's on the DoH website and the other was on the HPC website. There's also the response from IET and other stuff that I've read.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23225 - 27/04/07 04:45 PM
Re: VRCT renewal
[Re: ]
|
John Stewart
Mentor
Registered: 06/08/04
Posts: 150
Loc: Charing Cross Hospital
|
I think I still have copies - I can send you the electronic documents if you like. One's on the DoH website and the other was on the HPC website. There's also the response from IET and other stuff that I've read.
Richard that would be much appreciated I'll PM you my email address. Thanks - John
_________________________
There are things that are known and there are things that are unknown. In-between there are doors.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23229 - 27/04/07 07:36 PM
Re: VRCT renewal
[Re: John Stewart]
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Whether we like it or not the NHS is gearing up to establish a career-framework for those working under the Clinical Sciences umbrella (including clinical engineering, medical electronics, etc). In fact all of the non-healthcare professions. My view is that this also includes us and is a precursor to regulation as well as AfC/KSF/NOS.
Perhaps regulation will only affect Medical Physics, i.e. those working with "appropriate" job-profiles of healthcare scientists in engineering, given protected job-roles by employers, at the recommendation of their Clinical Scientist managers. Whatever happens I think regulation may work on a sliding scale so it's applied differently to different job-roles within professions.
I'm still suspicious that certain Clinical Sciences (Engineering) job profiles are almost identical to Medical Techniologist profiles (Engineering) in the AfC job profiles. Why is there a need for this? Maybe this is where the sliding scale comes in. It would be convenient to have two job-roles if we wanted to divide a workforce with almost identical roles but working under different management structures and with different attitudes to implementing regulation, wouldn't it?
It is possible EBME engineers with the same roles as those working in Medical Physics engineering roles could be left "high and dry" with poorer prospects, i.e. unable to move into Medical Physics if their EBME management and employer do not have a similar attitude to implementing regulation and different job-profiles exist for MP and EBME (if only in name).
I think EBME managers need to get up to speed with what's happening and get involved or risk losing out on funding for trainees, education & training, career development, etc, that must surely follow regulation and an enhanced career framework.
Otherwise I think that it's possible that not only will there be an increasing divide between Clinical Scientists and Engineers, in the future as someone commented earlier, but differentials between Engineers employed in Medical Physics and Engineers doing identical jobs in EBME, with the potential for regulation to be applied differently to each group in spite of this.
Forgive my paranoid ramblings......
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23679 - 31/05/07 09:23 AM
Re: VRCT renewal
[Re: Huw]
|
Kevin Haylett
Novice
Registered: 28/01/05
Posts: 13
Loc: Manchester
|
Dear All,
In the spirit of open information I have put the following letter from the DoH on my web site at:
http://www.medeng.net/DoHMay07.pdf
The letter highlights the earliest possible date of any registration (2009) of 'Clinical Technologists' and I still feel the wider debate is far from over.
Best Regards
Kevin
Kevin Haylett - http://www.medeng.net
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23683 - 31/05/07 10:00 AM
Re: VRCT renewal
[Re: Kevin Haylett]
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Between now and then departments who wish to adopt the IPEM training scheme can do so hence technicians who currently do not meet the requirements for membership of the VRCT can work towards voluntary registration via the prior experience, education and training route, for example (POST - 12 months duration).
Effectively, in this letter, the DoH is informing employers (I assume Kevin is speaking in his capacity as an "employer" rather than that of a Clinical Scientist since he's not employed as a Technician as far as I'm aware) that regulation is on the way it's now up to employers to look into implementing this. The HPC is likely to be regulator for professions in the NHS, as it is for other NHS occupations.
There will also be a 3 year grandparenting provision after HPC regulation begins, if I interpret a recent circular from IPEM correctly. I think the DoH is clear that regulation is coming, the HPC will regulate and those currently on the VRCT are likely to transfer across to this register.
|
|
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 462 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
