EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Agenda For Change AfC and VRCT

Richard,

I think it is really a case of supply and demand. Coming from a different industry into the same grade as existing biomeds is a case of; if my current employer wants my skills then they have to pay. Fortunately for me there is a skills shortage.
VRCT is a method of achieving closed shop. Without registration in the future anybody, no matter what their experience will have to start at the bottom.
A majority of engineering skills are transferable. Avionics, Weapon Systems engineering, Medical engineering all involve similar engineering principles. It is in my view the procedures and processes that need to be learnt rather than the engineering aspect of the roles being different.
I feel fortunate to be in the position I am in. We have a mix of experience from old time in the job experienced hands to recent biomed graduates. As a team our mix of skills and experience allow us to focus on our role of providing technical support to our trust.
VRCT may preserve your jobs, but it could mean the end if existing skilled engineers are unable to cross at a level commensurate with their skill level.

Well done col.
I think that says it all.

The gateways in the AfC pay bands are there for two different reasons.

The bottom band is a safety net to catch the people who talked their way in through the interview but haven't a clue about hands-on engineering.

The top gateway is there to ensure that people carry on learning and attending training courses to update their knowledge. The job description should say something about attending courses in order to keep your knowledge and skills up to date. If you don't, then you wont get through the top gateway - in theory.

Unless you can show that you were willing and eager to attend the courses but your employer wouldn't pay for them ! !

So if they put you above the second gateway e.g. MTO 3 top of scale going to band 5 where is the incentive to learn new skills and keep knowledge up to date?

Don't the employers have a total get out clause from the KSF ? Doesn't the document say you are entitled to all the learning and training you need unless of course your department has no money to send you on any courses ?

Col,

Historically Technicians from outside the NHS have been able to enter into Medical Engineering despite there being definite requirements laid down in the Whitley Council Handbook. This attempt to maintain standards in the workforce and force in-house training schemes has been circumvented by desperate managers, in some cases, who have failed to get the resources invest in training or supporting the careers of MTO’s coming through the system and left themselves short-staffed.

Departments have been forced to look outside the NHS and pay a premium for Technicians, whatever their background, for the actual level of relevant skills that the individuals from outside industries have brought-in on day one of their employment. Obviously not good for morale of those individuals already in post who may have had to work up through the system with the Whitley Council rules being applied rigorously in their case – presumably because they’re already in the post and a ‘carrot does not have to be dangled’ to employ them. Colleagues on the same grade are then required to 'assist' in getting the new-starters 'up to speed'. Been there.

It's only because there continues to be a demand (actually not so much a demand with regard to unfilled posts as a lack of suitably qualified, experienced, individuals with specific, relevant experience in medical equipment management) that individuals with no specific relevant experience are being employed on 'working grades' whilst they are 'trained' in the specifics.

In my opinion it's not got much to do with the level of skills of the entrants to do the job specifically - just that the aviation industry and military are still training and releasing technicians onto the market at all. There is very little choice out there full stop. The basic engineering training is what's important - however this is the base-level that medical engineers start from - the specific training still has to be carried out i.e. a new entrant would not meet requirements to work unsupervised on day one whatever their background was in avionics, etc, etc.

I agree that grading has nothing to do with VRCT - so I see nothing wrong with the requirements for VRCT excluding an MTO3**, MTO4 or MTO5 that does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Whatever their grade individuals should not expect to enter a profession without meeting the requirements of training, relevant skills, academic qualifications and experience. Hopefully, soon, the loopholes will be closed, we will start training Professionals from scratch and allow appropriately qualified individuals from other disciplines to be trained and gain experience without them feeling that ‘special treatment’ is due to them .

The point is Col that this will mean we have to train new starters, fit for purpose, to requirements, to be state-registered professionals capable of working unsupervised and not take 'second-best' from other industries.

We were recently told, that if during appraisal, a course was identified as part of somebody's training needs and the employer could not provide it due to the usual shortage of cash, this should not count against the individual, stopping them going through the gateways. Lets be fair, otherwise they could use the "no money" excuse to keep everybody on the lowest possible rung.

Mr Ling,

"we have to train new starters, fit for purpose, to requirements, to be state-registered professionals capable of working unsupervised and not take 'second-best' from other industries."

I took a conscious decision to move from my previous position to this career, I was not thrown on the "scrapheap". I spent two years researching the many different aspects of the various EBME disciplines, spoke to many people(to determine what assimulation training and courses were available) and was even prepared to undertake unpaid work experience. By visitng various sections, not only did I discover where techniques and skills overlap, but so did the various managers/physicists/technicians I spoke to.

"Second best"? - you decide.

Richard,

"to be state-registered professionals capable of working unsupervised and not take 'second-best' from other industries."

Not very nice.

Richard, you fail to realise that those from other industries do have parallel career paths of professional development. They do not wake up one morning fully qualified.

The skills I use here to test equipment and diagnose faults are those I developed and honed elsewhere.

I am state registered with the Engineering Council. I qualified for the I Eng status 16 years ago and "served my time' as an Eng tech before being eligible for I Eng.

A graduate who attends a University to study Biomedical science, is not yet qualified to this status. But is eligible to join the VRCT as the training time counts as experience in this field. Why should this body dictate my ability to work?

Eagle,

Thankfully I don't have to decide whether you are 'second-best' or not - that's not what I'm here for - that's up to professionals in the VRCT (the 'bigots' and 'elitists' you were referring to) and those who will maintain the state register (if it materialises) in the near future. In my response to Col I didn't say you were put on the scrapheap or that you were 'second best' (you made those associations yourself).

It is a fact that we (and I include you and Col) have to train new starters as I said. You, Col and I mentioned the demand for Technicians is there - in my opinion preferably trained from scratch in Clinical Technology, once they qualify in life sciences, engineering, etc, straight from college or University. The Vocational or Educational routes, whatever.

'Second best' is not a reflection on the individual from industry it's just not the ideal for the needs of Medical Engineering. The ideal is what I described I think. We need to train new-starters just like they do in some other industries and the rest of the NHS as 'Professionals' You would not try to deprive individuals in the 'Medical Engineering Profession' from receiving a similar level of relevant basic engineering training, in clinical Technology, that you received in your old job would you?

Then they can go on pick up the knowledge, skills and experience required to become state registered. The stuff that any new entrant should have to pick up - irrespective of their previous basic engineering training or non-relevant experience.