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

Mr Ling,

"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"

How does this compare with your comment in another discussion:

"The point I was getting at is that standardisation can have pitfalls."

Variety is the spice of life!

TNBT,

As you've probably read in previous threads when I've posted I agree with you. It's up to the HPC and IPEM VRCT representatives to try their best to make the transition easier.

Col,

No, not if they don't meet the established professional standards and job requirements that I am required to meet - irrespective of grade - VRCT and future regulation has nothing to do with MTO grading. At the moment demand is dictating that employing somewhat 'less than the ideal candidate' on the working grade will do.

What I do I think is that it's awkward having to 'hold the hand' (effectively help provide on the job training and specifics) and support individuals from outside industry that are put on the same grade (MTO3) without the necessary knowledge and experience to just get on with it. Especially when there are MTO2s out there who have started out in this job, need to progress and have the basics who could be brought-on.

Individuals with attitudes like yourself and Eagle, in my opinion, wish to effectively devalue the efforts of Medical Enginers who do meet the requirements of the VRCT; by insisting that your experiences, training and knowledge, in another career, much of the experience probably non-relevent, has a higher equivalent value than our knowledge, training and experience actually doing the job.

Isn't that just a 'paper' qualification?

Eagle,

You're getting a bit desperate now - taking things out of context from another totally different thread on equipment standardisation:

Actually one involves equipment standardisation and the other involves VRCT and regulation - in both cases I am consistent in my view that we need to get it right. Lowering standards to meet your particularly low standards (as you demonstrate with this out of context posting) is not consistent with the concept of regulation or standardisation.

The only pitfall to regulation I can see is that you might just be eligible to be included in the VRCT. Although I am not certain that you can even put valid arguments together - never mind give evidence you meet minimum requirements for anything.

In the 'good old days' when we were MPT's rather than MTO's you couldn't progress unless you had a minimum amount of experience at each level. I started in the NHS as an MPT4 (coming in with 5 years experience elsewhere), which probably equates to an MTO2 today. If memory serves, you had to have at least 3 years experience at MPT4 in order to qualify for MPT3 etc. etc. At the giddy heights of MPT1 (MTO5) you had to have a minimum number of staff working for you and umpteen years experience.

It seems to me that the new system simply changes the entry requirement and re-introduces experiencial progression requirements via the gateways.

The advent of registration and having clearly defined standards must surely be a good thing for us (we get recognised as a profession) and for our customers (the patients). Grandparenting will take care of initial registration with the HPC, with the future intake or progression harmonised to the same standard.

Whats wrong with that?

I would like to say
Corgi engineers have to jump through a hoop for each type of fuel and for each type of appliance.
Also they are required to retake the updated test about every three years to prove competance on new equipment advances.
My point to this is corgi only got like that after they had the strangle hold,
until then they were not unlike the VRCT.
perhaps it might be good for compedence but hard to obtain if applied to medical equipment, and almost impossible to recruit from other sectors.
speak to your medical gas installers.

Mr Ling

I have worked with the Eagle on several occasions and I must agree with you that his standards are pretty low.

Absolutely Technman - one of the reasons why Whitley has failed to work, in my opinion, is that they are only guidelines - managers started to circumvent the guidelines and this has meant standards of relevent experience and qualifications have been ignored because of high demand for Technicians. That's why we're lagging behind the other professionals - specific professional training, necessary to secure the supply of Clincial Technicians, never took-off nationally because of this approach.

We lost the link between education, applicable knowledge, specific training, on the job skills, relevent experience and the commensurate grade a long time ago which meant 'anyone' from a range of backgrounds could walk into the job with an HNC on a decent salary (dependent upon the level of demand) without specific skills or relevent experience - at times when there were lower grades that could have been promoted - hence no career progression and the juniors leave to go elsewhere.

With the help of NHS managers; individuals coming from outside with less than the required relevent experience have compromised the trainees that there have been and also the lower grades since they have taken jobs that others have been working towards. That's why it's never been worth training in-house. Managers have preferred to bring in others from outside with the basic engineering skills but then had to train them anyway - but on paper it doesn't take as long to train, it's less hassle and there's too few trainees to bring-on anyhow. We need to bring people in at the appropriate levels and train them specifically to do the job and provide a career path - not quick fixes.

Leonius,

That's why the training schemes are coming in I think. To supply the demand.

Mr Ling,
I strongly disagree with your comments. I believe experience from any industry involving electronic fault finding and repair can be directly relevant to medical electronics. As an ex RAF Avionics Technician i believe i will never see anything as complex in my new career as i did before.
Also 5 of my colleuges are ex military. Somebody recognizes what we have to offer. When all said and done, integrity, competence and professionalism are all down to the individual.

Ah, Topper!

A man after my own heart!

I don't know though, some of these new nebulisers are nearly as complex as the radio/radar and imaging systems on the Harriers!