Mr R J Ling
------
Member # 301
posted 08 November, 2006 07:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously; I was asking about what people consider to be "complex" because I think that MHRA raises potentially very contentious issues when trying to suggest a level of qualification for individuals servicing "complex" equipment (not like their usual impartial, fence-sitting nature, when considering their protection of commercial "sensitivities" I might add).
What I was referring to when I mentioned technicians qualified to L3 fixing "complex" equipment, and trying to find out from others what "complex" might mean to them, is that this is very subjective depending upon the level individuals are already experienced working at and who employs them.
It's all right for MHRA to state that L3 qualified individuals work on "complex" kit but the educational requirements of AfC and KSF (the things that determine salaries in the NHS) mean that it's possible that employers could actually use this guidance to justify employing individuals in the NHS who're on lower bands, hence lower salaries, to work on more complex equipment than they should be expected to considering the rate they're paid, the skills and knowledge they're expected to pick up on the job.
To me "complex" equipment could mean stuff fixed by a "specialist" - read into that as you will but as a "specialist" on band 6 I wouldn't want a lower graded technician i.e Band 4/5 (due to L3 qualifications or equivalent) to be expected to work on the same "complexity" of equipment as me, as suggested by the MHRA, and not earning a comparable wage. Neither do I relish the thought that this person might never be able to get out of this "trap" because VRCT/HPC will never consider them "fully qualified" until they get piece of paper and letters after their name.
However there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Qualifications, skills and experience translate to hard cash in the pocket, to some extent. I just don't think MHRA should have made statements about the level of qualification required to work on "complex" equipment without being able to specify or give examples what's meant by "complex" or even give the type of qualifications or basic training required, in general.
What's this tripe from DB2006(05) mean then?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals providing repair and maintenance services need to be adequately trained and appropriately qualified. This applies to directly employed staff, contracted services or others. For simple mechanical devices a qualification at NVQ level 2 may be
appropriate. For more complex devices a qualification at NVQ level 3 or above may be required. The level of qualifications and training required for each individual should be stipulated in all service contracts provided by external contractors or in house services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meaningless codswallop! Be interested to know who contributed this - is this actually meant to be guidance that is taken seriously?
As others have stated before - all these organisations are chipping-in about levels of required skills, qualifications and experience but there's no consistency or coordination with each other. They're not getting into the politics or discussing what they're publishing - it just seems to me that the whole lot of them, AfC panels, KSF panels, NOS groups, VRCT, IPEM, MHRA, NHS, DoH are just sending mixed messages about what's required to do the job.
I think that as a government agency that's always seemed, to me, keen to be seen to protect the interests of medical equipment manufacturers, in particular, (and their "commercial sensitivities") that the MHRA would have stayed out of the "required qualifications" political debacle.
