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

What about fulfilling the ongoing training requirements to ensure reregistration. I think it is the HPC's policy of reregistering every two years, this is on condition that the ongoing training requirements have been met.

Getting on the register is not the end of the process, it is just the start of the process of ensuring that your knowledge is kept up to date.

With other health professions this involves making a statement that you have fulfilled the training requirements, a percentage would be asked to provide training certificates to prove this.

All this worry about having a paper qualification or not is surely meaningless. All specifications I have ever seen, be they person specs for a job, entry qualification to a professional body or the like, say XXXXX qualification or equivalent. I doubt if anyone would get turned away if they did not have the correct piece of paper but had lots of relevant experience or vica versa. We all know there are just not enough of us around to be that picky. There seems to be a lot of inverted snobbery or even jealousy about people with or without degrees or other paperwork.
I am a registered clinical scientist but have never been near the grade A training scheme. I just had to show that what I had done was good enough and relavent. I had made sure I had gained experience to show to them and had enough accademic qualifications to keep them happy. If you have a lot of experience in a different field can you prove it is relavent and equivalent to someone with paper qualifications? If you have paper qualifications can you show that you know how to get your hands dirty as well?
I do not think anything will be as abosolutely black and white as people seemed to be concerned about.
Robert

Col,

And they will probably be forced, by state registration, to rethink their policies on this. State registration will probably influence the level of basic level of salary for individuals who can/cannot demonstrate their ability to meet the requirements - whether that is demonstrted in on the paper, you seem to distrust so much, it doesn't matter. It will be up to the individual, hopefully with the assistance of the employer, to establish whether they meet requirements or not. The easy one is with certificates of qualifications that are appropriately accredited - proof if you like. The other is by training certificates possibly obtained through formal, accredited, NHS training or previous, relevant, experience and training.

The HPC relies on the integrity of Universites and Colleges to provide the appropriate course content, practical aspects and assessments. In-house trianing schemes and courses will also have to meet requirements for accreditation, nationally, I think. Then there's your employer and managers (who will certainly be considering VRCT and registration if they're eligible, I reckon) who will assess you and put it down on paper - they do already as you've said. Look at how the other NHS Professions work.

Rojo,

The problem is, I think, that the VRCT and HPC has established qualifications for training, academic qualifications and relevent experience and it's a fact that not everybody will be in a position to meet them. I think what Eagle and Col are concerned about is that they want previous training and experience in industry to be considered and also the level of academic qualification to be lowered so they can meet the requirements.

I am probably being a bit old-fashioned here but I always thought that when trying to achieve a set standard (set roughly equivalent to other NHS professionals) that the individual was obliged to do what was required to meet it - not the other way around. There are plenty out there that will have to meet the requirements e.g. future trainees/new starters - hopefully with some flexibility when necessary but I doubt this includes lowering the standards nationally just to suit individuals. Defeats the purpose of regulation really doesn't it?

Mr Ling,

I don't think I've asked for the academic qualifications to be lowered, just for previous experience and training to be counted towards the 4 years of doing the job that the VRCT currently require.
Having seen other industries/government organisations/professions it is clear that transfer of best skills and practices can only be a good thing; still if can't see that you're more blinkered than I first thought.

"I am probably being a bit old-fashioned here but I always thought that when trying to achieve a set standard (set roughly equivalent to other NHS professionals) that the individual was obliged to do what was required to meet it - not the other way around. There are plenty out there that will have to meet the requirements e.g. future trainees/new starters"

I currently have an HNC which has always been suitable for my job and infact I was sent to college by my bosses to obtain this qualification. Suddenly it looks as if I am unable to gain promotion due to goalposts being changed because of registration.
Will my bosses pay for me to complete a degree course (including time off) in order to allow me to gain registration or after 13 years am I now stuck on my current grade and job because I would be unable to move because registration would be required for comparible jobs.

Eagle you posted this earlier:

Which bit of the VRCT criteria is too harsh? (A criterion being one aspect of the requirements - rather than criteria, being the pleural, implying all of them are too harsh).

There are core skills that are transferable, the bits of your training that can be proven based on qualifications, recognised training and experience, I think I've given my views that they are relevent - such skills as basic engineering practice learned on an apprenticeship for example.

The assessment of previous on-the-job experience is an issue that has to be decided based on the individual's experiences. however it is very subjective - you could have finished your apprenticeship then been working in a drawing office for 13 years, alternatively, been panel wiring instruments for 13 years or been testing electronic artificial horizons on ATE. Of course none of these would have much relevence to Medical Engineering.

Such specific, relevent, training, skills and experience can only be gained over time - over and above that already considered to be relevent. If you are eligible to be included on the VRCT and wish to be included just send them a cheque with your evidence that you meet the relevent criteria like I and many others did. There are no special cases as far as I'm aware. I don't think I'm being blinkered - you seem, to me, to have your head in the sand and want to be treated as a 'special case'.

TNBT,

Only your bosses can answer that one, if and when the time comes, TNBT. Anyhow that's a problem we all may face - irrespective of academic qualifications - there's nothing to say which electronic engineering or mechanical engineering degrees, whatever, are going to be acceptable i.e. whether they need to be accredited, honours, or 1st/2:1, etc, etc. Hopefully the transition onto the register will not be too difficult for individuals already on the VRCT whatever their academic qualifications. We'll just have to wait and see what happens - we're just stuck with things changing around us at the moment.

The point I was making Richard is that yes Registration would be a good idea but not if it disadvantages the people already doing the job with experience. For your qualifications to be ok one minute for the job only to be told 13 years later that you now need a degree to advance will just drive good technicians out of the profession. Just remember that the new graduates need people to learn from. Some of the people I have learned the most from have been from the 'old school' where the job was learned hands on ,not in a classroom.
By all means call me an inverted snob but you do not need a degree or the like to be a good technician.

Richard,

Actually I meet all requirements for VRCT except for time in post, which will shortly be due. I could sit back and say "I'm all right jack". I do not recall ever suggesting a lowering of standards. Your big beef is that I believe you do not like other engineers to move into your profession at equivalent grade and pay.

My concern has always been to ensure that the right calibre of engineer is selected. By in the future stating that all potential biomeds follow one academic route shuts the door firmly on other engineers. Electronics is electronics whether it is a multifaceted patient monitor, a weapon system or an avionics system.
One of my colleagues has suggested that an exam be set. This would require passing by all engineers currently in post, and in the future those who wish to apply to be registered with the HPC via VRCT.