EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Agenda For Change Job Descriptions

Although our jobs are different, if you look at the Job Factor definitions it is usually a simple one line statement that we need to match.
For example if you look at factor 6 'Responsibilities for Patient/Client Care' I have written half a page of examples in my job description.
The Job Factor definition states;
"Level 4(b) maintaining or calibrating specialist or complex equipment for use on patients"
"Level 5(b) calibrates or maintains highly specialist or highly complex equipment".
Despite our differences in our jobs, we must still fit one of the above definitions. What we need to do is decide and argue what is complex and what is highly complex. If we can say highly complex in our job descriptions (and who can argue otherwise) then we match level 5 in the factor plan.
It would be useful if we could agree amongst ourselves the job description statements we should be using that match up with factor plan. In that way at least we will all be same.

This is my "score sheet" for the Senior Anaesthetics Technician who is technically responsible for the repair and servicing of all the patient ventilators and anaesthetic machines in our Theatres. He has one other technician below him but only has technical responsibility for him.

Senior Anaesthetics Technician.
Job Evaluation Factor Plan.

1. Communication & Relationships.
Providing and receiving complex, sensitive or contentious information, where persuasive, motivational, negotiating, training or persuasive skills are required. This may be because agreement or co-operation is required or because there are barriers to understanding.
Level 4 = 32

2. Knowledge, Training & Experience.
Specialist knowledge across the range of work procedures and practices underpinned by theoretical knowledge and relevant practical experience.
Level 6 = 156

3. Analytical and Judgemental Skills.
Judgements involving highly complex facts or situations, which require analysis, interpretation and comparison of a range of options.
Level 5 = 60

4. Planning and Organisational Skills.
Planning and organisation of activities or programmes, some of which may be ongoing.
Level 2 = 15

5. Physical Skills.
The post requires highly developed physical skills where a high degree of precision or speed and high levels of hand, eye and sensory co-ordination are essential.
Level 4 = 42

6. Responsibilities for patient / client care.
Provides general non-clinical advice, information, guidance or ancillary services directly to patients, relatives or carers.
Level 2 = 9

7. Responsibility for Policy and Service Development Implementation.
Implements policies within determined parameters and proposes changes to working practices or procedures for own work area.
Level 2 = 12

8. Responsibilities for financial and physical resources.
Responsible for repair and maintenance of physical assets.
Level 3 = 21

9. Responsibilities for Human Resources.
Responsible for day to day supervision or co-ordination of staff within a section of a department.
Level 2 = 12

10.Responsibilities for Information Resources.
Records personally generated test results or similar work records.
Level 1 = 4

11. Responsibilities for Research and Development.
Regularly undertakes equipment testing or adaptation.
Level 2 = 12

12. Freedom to Act.
Expected results are defined but the post holder decides how they are best achieved. Is guided by principles and broad occupational policies or regulations. Guidance may be provided by peers or external reference points.
Level 4 = 32

13. Physical Effort.
There is a frequent requirement to exert moderate physical effort for several long periods during a shift.
Level 4 = 18

14. Mental Effort.
There is a frequent requirement for prolonged concentration.
Level 4 = 18

15. Emotional Effort.
Occasional exposure to highly distressing or highly emotional circumstances.
Level 3 = 18


16. Working Conditions.
Frequent exposure to unpleasant working conditions / Occasional exposure to highly unpleasant working conditions.
Level 3 = 12

Total Score = 473
Band 7 (466 - 539)

I am surprised that you have scored only level 2 for patient/client care. The job factor defintion states that level 4 is maintaining or calibrating specialist or complex equipment for use on patients and level 5 applies if it is highly specialist or highly complex. Anaesthetic machines and patient ventilators would surely be in level 4 or 5.

I'm working from the Job Evaluation Handbook - First Edition.
Section 6 is "Responsibilities for patient/client care".
Level 4 says you have to ;-

a)Implement clinical Care Packages
Or
b) Provide clinical technical services to patients/clients
Or
c) Provide advice in relation to the care of individual or groups of patients/clients.

It doesn't mention maintaining or calibrating equipment. Section 8, "Responsibilities for financial and physical resources" mentions maintenance and repair of equipment or "physical assets" but you have to be responsible for a budget or ALL the physical assets to score above Level 3.

Roy
A revised edition came out in July this year which contains more definitions about banding levels.
I got my copy from the Amicus website.
www.amicushealth.org/archives/000081.html

OK, lets not beat about the bush, we could discuss this until the cows come home.

There was a posting from Papworth in the topic "AfC an E.T. site service result" stating that at that site, MTO3*2 & MTO3*3 jobs were matched to Band 6, and MTO4 also job matched to Band 6 but higher up the scale. This seems not unreasonable to me and our congratulations must go to our colleagues at this site.

However, in the same topic when replying to a query about job descriptions, the Papworth poster asks rhetorically why someone else would want to see their revised job descriptions. Is he 'avin' a larf? Why NOT share the job descriptions? What have they got to hide that might be useful to us all?

As I said earlier, the more information we have about how job descriptions are being constructed in the EI sites the better. And what better information than the EI job descriptions themselves. Why re-invent the wheel Trust by Trust when there's some already in circulation (if you pardon the pun!) that could be used as templates for everyone?

But I'm probably expecting too much.............

Thanks Ken - I'll read that with interest ! It's a shame we weren't told about the new guidance - but then when they're already up to Issue 7 of the K & S F handbook I suppose it's not surprising !

Rob. I agree. It does make you wonder why there hasn't been some effort to publicise "national" job descriptions, similar to the ones agreed with the RCN for a wide range of nursing posts (apparently). The published Job Profiles help a little but are too vague to be really useful when trying to write a detailed job description.

When I get our job descriptions agreed and signed off, I don't see why they couldn't be "published" on this site - after having been doctored to remove any information which would identify the owner - unless everyone in my department agreed to having their job description published, that is. Surely the role of the Early Implementor sites was to find the obvious flaws, check the whole process and evaluate the outcomes so that everyone else could learn from their experience. Getting an accurate, meaningful, easily evaluated job description must be one of the basic lessons to learn. So come - lets see what you came up with

Glad you agree Roy.

Even if the EI job descriptions are not published on this site, with their authors permission they could be distributed off-forum as it were.

I can never understand what the secrecy is with job descriptions.

If you apply for a job the HR Dept normally sends out a job description and a person specification.

Why wouldn't you want other people to know what you do?

Surely, unless the spec says must have long curly hair, wear a dress and be called Shirley, the JD is an outline of the duties a person is expected to perform.

If there were generic JD's then this would be the starting point for negotiation as the minimum criteria for a post with additional requirements scored higher, hopefully with enough scope in a scale/structure to place an individual at a suitable point.

I know all this is stating the obvious but for the life of me I can't see were all this paranoia over "what my job entails" comes from.

Unless of course people are "punching above their weight"

I contributed our JD's to a pre-AfC JD audit Sean Fearon was doing a while ago when he was collecting them for other purposes.

When completed, the JD's from all over the North West were put onto a CD and distributed to those who'd participated.

It's called "co-operation" I believe.