|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
#28318 - 06/03/08 03:53 PM
Re: The VRCT Website
[Re: Darth Welder]
|
Eagle
Scholar
Registered: 04/03/03
Posts: 64
Loc: South West
|
Started reading the biographies of those on the panel, and like in this department, as well as coming from college and working up through the ranks, a third of the people on the panel have come into this trade with varying & wide experience, such as ex RAF, ex Navy, ex TV repair trade.
So, this led me to think - RAF Avionics technician, probably on £32k, looking for a new career. Due to onset of regulation & no medical experience, they are offered a band 4 position (at best) - why would they want to come into this trade?
Whether people on this forum agree with people being rewarded for having previous engineering experience when they transfer across to this industry, I find it amazing that people cannot see what the long term repercussions will be to the medical engineering discipline when employers can no longer recruit people of similar calibre.
Comments welcome!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#28319 - 06/03/08 04:09 PM
Re: The VRCT Website
[Re: Eagle]
|
Geoff Hannis
Hero
Registered: 12/02/04
Posts: 3026
Loc: the path less trodden
|
Why would our ex-RAF Avionics technician want to come into biomed in the first place, Eagle (that is, why wouldn't he want to stay in his own line of work)? And surely you wouldn't expect him to just fly straight onto the top of the heap, would you (he would have to be pretty exceptional to pull that one off, I would have thought)?
... I find it amazing that people cannot see what the long term repercussions will be to the medical engineering discipline when employers can no longer recruit people of similar calibre.
What makes you suppose that this will become the case? "Similar calibre" to whom ... those already working in biomed? What "long term repercussions" do you foresee? To my mind, biomed has already become fairly dumbed-down compared to what it was some years ago. There's a lot of "monkey-see, monkey-do" now, you know ... checklists, procedures that have to be followed etc., whilst there has been a reduction in good old-fashioned repair work (due to the kit becoming more reliable, due to in turn to improvements in the base technologies etc., etc.). 
Edited by Geoff Hannis (06/03/08 04:46 PM)
Edit Reason: Dumbed-down!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#28321 - 06/03/08 05:13 PM
Re: The VRCT Website
[Re: Topper]
|
Geoff Hannis
Hero
Registered: 12/02/04
Posts: 3026
Loc: the path less trodden
|
If you're not eligible to join, Tony, why would you want to join?
I would say that the VRCT website speaks for itself, and I'm grateful to the team there in producing it for all to see, and be clear about what it is. As I've said all along, it is not meant for engineering technicians working on (ie, servicing, carrying out maintenance and repairs) and supporting (as in "technical support") medical equipment at all.
"Who's getting rich ..."? Who cares? If people have been daft enough to be frightened into paying subscriptions, that's their business.
Edited by Geoff Hannis (06/03/08 05:17 PM)
Edit Reason: ...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#28325 - 07/03/08 08:49 AM
Re: The VRCT Website
[Re: Geoff Hannis]
|
kit
Dreamer
Registered: 01/09/05
Posts: 22
|
Geoff, you and I seem to do the same job, service and repair medical devices, and as you know there has been many job titles to cover this line of work over the years –is clinical technologist not just the latest in this continuous line?. My point is that in most departments Ive worked in it always seemed an unattainable ambition to be in any of the best paid jobs as I am not a Physicists (“Scientist”) and thus could never reach too high up the ladder in any of these departments.
I have an HND in Physics and I did sign up to the VRCT a few years ago whilst I still had the chance to get on without having to posses a degree in a scientific discipline. Now with the advent of clinical technologists being recognised as Healthcare “Scientists” and with the VRCT now insisting on a scientific degree - is the gap between us and Physicists now shrinking and we can look forward to being on a level playing field? If we are excellent, I’ll look forward to catching up financially in the not the too distant future. If not, I don’t see the point in anyone bothering at all in going down this degree qualified route (Except for their own personal ambitions) as there is still going to be this great divide financially and status wise between Physicists and clinical technologists who will in effect have the same qualifications … ie scientific/engineering degrees. Although I enjoy the work we do I would not recommend to any young person to do a scientific degree in clinical technology knowing the financial and career restrictions that will be placed in their way. Does the work we do require a scientific degree?
Personally I’m not holding out too much hope in gaining anything at all from any of these developments but I really do wonder why I have been brought under the banner of “Healthcare Scientist” when I have to describe my job title as “Technician” and get paid as a technician.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#28330 - 07/03/08 10:03 AM
Re: The VRCT Website
[Re: Kawasaki]
|
Topper
Expert
Registered: 12/09/03
Posts: 127
Loc: New Cross Hospital Wolverhampt...
|
Hi Geoff
i don't want to join VRCT as i don't see any benefit to me or the patients in my area and also knowing a domestic electrician is now required to part with on average £500 annually to be Part P registered, i have no doubt CT registration will eventually cost us all a packet. However, as an electronics technician who maintains ICU devices (vents,pumps, monitors etc) and is involved in patient transfers, INOmax set up and administration and HFOV setup, staff advice & training, trials & evals. etc, i fall firmly into the scope of a CT and therefore i feel i am required to be on VRCT, however as mentioned i am not eligible but i know registrants who are definitley not CTs in any way shape or form therefore they are not required to be on VRCT but they are. So, how did they get on their and does this mean any tom dick or harry can get on it if they were in post prior to Aug 2001.
Topper
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#28332 - 07/03/08 10:09 AM
Re: The VRCT Website
[Re: Kawasaki]
|
Paul Allum
Visionary
Registered: 30/11/05
Posts: 39
Loc: Kent
|
To answer some questions posed in several posts above,
1)Yes, you probably should call yourself a "Healthcare Scientist" because
2) There is a "Healthcare Scientist" career structure and set of banding profiles which should (in theory) allow anyone to climb the ladder from band 1 up to band 9 by demonstrating the appropriate skills. It's linked into Skills for Health NOS frameworks, I leave it to those with supernatural insight to see how this will fit in to regulation though.
Yours No 42
PS Heres a link to DOH thinking on registration http://www.vrct.org.uk/vrct/Updates/DH%20Statement%20December%202007.pdf
Edited by Paul Allum (07/03/08 10:10 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#28333 - 07/03/08 10:16 AM
Re: The VRCT Website
[Re: Topper]
|
Geoff Hannis
Hero
Registered: 12/02/04
Posts: 3026
Loc: the path less trodden
|
There's no Tom, Dick or Harry in my gang, Mate!
Anyway, having said my piece I'm going to step back from this thread now, as I don't aspire to climbing the career ladder in the UK NHS (or anywhere else for that matter).
When you operate on the Dark Side you get paid for the work you actually do, regardless of whatever it is you call yourself, whatever job title you prefer, or whatever you pretend to be (or dream of becoming).
Have a nice peaceful day, guys.
Edited by Geoff Hannis (07/03/08 10:24 AM)
Edit Reason: May the Force be with you
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
48 registered
(Andrew FK, D.O.A, 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 461 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
