EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues VRCT - Who's Re-Newed?

A personal view:

I have worked in the Medical Engineering profession for well over 30 years and I am becoming more and more exasperated at the nonsense that is being written about the profession. We all have a right to our opinions and to express those freely within the confines of the law of the land. However, in doing so, do we not also have a responsibility to ensure that what we are saying is based around a modicum of fact?

I read many criticisms about the VRCT to which I have listened and reacted in a positive way. However, whilst some on this Forum make excellent, well-founded arguments others do not. Often those expressing opinions seem to be ill-informed, possibly based on an inability to actually want to read, listen to, or, understand what is written and reported. Or perhaps, this happens because their prejudices or insecurities are so overwhelming.

The thrust of some of the responses to this thread, once again, would appear to be to deride and ridicule the VRCT and therefore its members. Throwing up copious “facts” and making accusations about mismanagement, financial probity, bullying and intimidation (to name but four). It would appear that the overall objective of some is to undermine and debunk all professional activities which seek to promote the Medical Engineering profession positively.

As a result, because of the negativity, what we could end up with is a non-profession which needs little education, training or indeed, regulation. This is because some argue that the knowledge and skills they require are at a very low level, are non-clinical, not safety-critical and certainly are not scientific in nature.

So medical engineering is non-clinical and not safety critical? Thus the actions taken by a medical engineering technologist, whilst performing repair, maintenance, calibration, electrical safety tests or other equipment management activities, have no bearing on patient safety, diagnosis or treatment? You never venture into the clinical environment and examine patient-connected equipment? There is no evidence of maintenance induced incidents? All completely incorrect: almost every action you take will have a direct bearing on the well being of the patient! Other healthcare professionals and patients (probably without knowing) rely on you performing your role competently! If this is not the case, your work is either heavily supervised or perhaps you may not fully understand what the implications are of failing to carry out your role to an appropriate standard. Thus, does that mean you shouldn’t worry about the concerns that patients, the public and other healthcare professionals may have around the safety of medical devices? I believe the opposite to be true.

So medical engineering doesn’t involve science? No need to understand and apply basic physics; atomic theory; electricity and magnetism; anatomy and physiology; mathematics; etc, etc? Therefore, because science is not involved, the work the profession undertakes does not need the assurance that each individual has understanding and competence in science and hence engineering? I believe the opposite to be true.

Furthermore, the argument continues: no need to care of professional matters, such as, ensuring that appropriate basic training is being delivered or that your competence can be externally and independently assured as safe and effective. I believe the opposite to be true.

As a result, your argument must be: “in the NHS, according to Agenda for Change and in line with the qualifications and skills that we define are required; we operate at Assistant Practitioner level and should be paid at Band 4 or below!” In this time of financial difficulty many an administrator will look on that statement as manna from heaven – time to save money, reorganisation here we come! And yes it does happen; many colleagues up and down the country have already been down banded to reflect similar interpretations made by managers. The same scenario may also be repeated in the wider healthcare industry.

If you share that philosophy, that is fine, because perhaps you are not a Clinical Technologist; therefore, there is agreement here. As a consequence, there is no need for you to worry further about being called Clinical Technologist or, indeed, being one – unless you want to train-up in the future? But then you may have to join a training scheme or get a clinical technology degree and be prepared to say the words “medical physics” without having a paroxysm!

The irony is that many, who have been in the profession for a long time and have qualifications which are at a lower level than those required now, will be very good in their role. If subjected to external scrutiny they would probably pass with flying colours. Your skills, knowledge and experience are extremely important and essential to the continued well-being of the profession. It is just a question of having confidence in your role and what you are capable of and, reflecting positively on the view you have of your professional world. Accept that the NHS and the healthcare industry has changed significantly over the last 10 years and that the bar has been raised in terms of what is now required in terms of qualifications for those starting out in the profession and the need to have assured competence. That doesn’t mean that what you have to offer is not good enough but you could be undervaluing yourself! You should not fear change: embrace it, use your energies positively; argue the importance of your professional role in maintaining patient safety and equipment effectiveness; join a professional body and work towards improving and developing the profession rather than talking it down.

By the way, just to stay with the thread, I have renewed my VRCT membership for 2011.