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

Richard,

Calm down calm down.
Making the comparison with other professions allied to healthcare and their training, I hope to show that at present the dedicated training route you wish for is not fully in place and is not funded. At present I expect a student on a biomedical degree course is paying tuition fees. The other professions do not.
As for niche, a reference to it being a small area of engineering - not elitist.
I am not against VRCT, I am not convinced that barring experienced engineers from starting, other than at the very bottom is the best at present. If in the future, the achademic facilities are in place to ensure a steady stream of graduates into the profession, as is the case now for the radiographers etc I keep referring to. Then the HPC / VRCT or who ever can apply the restrictions.
I suppose what you and I are really arguing about, is not the worth of engineers entering our chosen profession, but the lack of support to develop dedicated medical technologists who follow a set trainig path. Until this happens we have to accept "second best" as you call me. I know my department were desparate so they got me. But although I did not have the exact skills to make me useful from day one, I have developed into someone useful to the NHS.

One point raised in this thread is the transfer of skill. I'm qualified in Electrical and Electronic Engineering (HND) and worked in consumer electronics, computer manufacture (big mainframe stuff) and scientific instruments (mass spec. & electron microscopes) - all for big international companies - before joining the NHS 20 years ago. Things were very different then and most of what I learnt was on the job, although I did the 2 week Falfield course very early on in my carreer !

When I joined I moved from running an electrical assembly line, inspection and electronics test department to "managing" a 2 man department - me and a.n.other - who soon left, leaving just me. I now manage a department of 10 people - but if I was in the position I was in 20 years ago I wouldn't have a hope in hell of running this department properly if I was just being brought in. The skills and knowledge I'd accumulated equiped me to deal with the NHS 20 years ago but would be totally inadequate now.

I could certainly move to another technical management job in another field, however.

I suppose I'm saying that the skills required in the modern NHS are very different. So someone who has a good engineering or technical background can move in and make a good Biomed - with the right training - and a good technician can leave the NHS and get a job in industry, but someone with a degree in Medical Technology or whatever may find migration more difficult because their knowledge would be too focussed.

You're right in saying that a radiographer or a physiotherapist has severly limited options when looking for another job - unless they do a major change in direction and re-train (or de-skill). Engineering isn't like that. We can lose people very easily and very quickly, but replacing them takes a long time and costs a lot of money.

This seems to be rambling a bit (sorry !) but I think I'm trying to make a couple of points ;-
1) No matter how good a Guidance System or Computer System technician you are, you shouldn't expect to just walk in to EBME on a high grade of pay and hit the ground running. It's not just about engineering. It's more about the machine / human interface. Getting a real grip on it takes time.
2) If registration limits our choice of candidates for jobs and steers people towards a degree in Biomedical Engineering or whatever, then in the long run it should be a good thing. Partly because it will bring some stability to the workforce and partly because it will stop hospitals simply filling vacancies with whoever happens to be around at the time - remember my little story about a colleague who had two vacancies, wasn't allowed to advertise and was given two re-deployed gardeners by the hospital management because they were being made redundant ?

There will be pain in the short term, discomfort in the medium term, but the final outcome should be beneficial. Unfortunately I'll only be here long enough to suffer the pain and discomfort

Roy,

Superb, nail and head come to mind

How many of us actually planned on becoming a Medical Engineer/Clinical Technologist or whatever? I would imagine that a large majority of us came into this profession via the engineering route, with a 'time served' practical background. This may have worked in the past but I'm not so sure these days.

We are going to compete for staff who wish to join our "profession' as compared to other healthcare professions, but we do not have a comparable, measurable, entry qualification, apart from ONC as outlined by Whitley council all those years ago. Perhaps for us to justify using the term profession, we need to have an entry qualification that is identifiable specifically to ourselves and comparable to the other Healthcare groups. This standard is currently being set at degree level, but should not be considered in any way as questioning our existing workforce, but rather looking to our future workforce.

We are all aware that times are changing and the emphasis on what we do also changes. The changes I've seen in my time are that in 1980 I needed to know the machine, but now I also need to know the treatment. There are subtle but fundamental differences in the knowledge required to do these roles properly and, I would put forward the case that we now have to be more scientific in our approach, thus requiring a training and education to reflect this. This not to say that we don't need to have some sort of engineering background - just in a different manner to what we had before.

It is the current Government's aim that 50% of school leavers will go on to university. I'm not sure how many will come out with a degree but we need to be able to attract some of those students into our profession. I think that our role demands a reasonable level of ability, skill and thought and, as almost 50% of the population are going to university then we should recruit mainly from that pool.

There has been some criticism of graduates - and I include both engineering and electronics in this – who have little or no practical experience and, in some cases aptitude. That's not necessarily their fault, it's the system, rightly or wrongly.

What is needed is to strike a balance between the old and the new. In some ways, the fact that we are likely to end up at graduate level is almost irrelevant to this process. All that means is that we will be on a par with all of the other professional groups.

The graduate entry is for the future, and so it is important that we try and influence the education providers to give us what we consider suitable courses. This, surely, must be the role of IPEM/ART/IEE etc., who in turn should take notice of what is happening out here on the front line. Or, to put it another way, what kind of expertise are we going to need in 10 or 15 years from now.

The other strand not covered is for those already in post. As previously outlined, when the entry requirements are changed, this does not mean that we will all have to go and get a degree. What we need to achieve is a method by which those who WANT to can upgrade their academic profile to an equivalent level. I stress the 'want' because I think that it will not be compulsory unless moving from one job to another. Remember, there will be a grandparenting period for registration with HPC and it is unlikely in the extreme (I hope!) that anybody already in post will be down graded. New qualifications criteria are not retrospective, they will apply to new entrants and those wishing to progress.

Col,

I think from my comments including:

I know what I meant when referring to it as a niche occupation - 'elitist' is a term you and Eagle have consistently referred to - not my words.

This isn't happening at the moment and hasn't previously has it - otherwise you and Eagle would not be whinging about only just being eligible for VRCT but it could be the case in the future - just a view of mine based on what I think is happening. It could affect me as much as you.

Stop playing the martyr - the reference I made to 'second best' was the situation of employing less than the ideal-qualified candidates with non-relevent experience from outside the NHS. You know that.

As I said before - it has no reflection on the individual just the system - don't try for the sympathy vote it won't work on people who've actually read and understood what I've previously stated.

I happen to agree with what Roy has posted, very succinctly, if you actually read what I have posted then you will see that these are points I've already raised. If you agree with what Roy's getting at then you agree in part to what I've been getting at all along. Thanks for that Roy.

Morning Richard,

I'm disappointed that you have lowered your self to selective quoting. I thought this was the preserve of tabloid journalists and sleazy politicians!

I'll try another tack to get feedback on how VRCT will uphold the standards and really to get us back to discussing the profession.

Open forum and if any body says " by sending CPD information to the VRCT' I will scream.

Question;

Once a person has registered on VRCT or HPC in the future. How will (can) that organisation ensure that all members act professionally and with the utmost integrity?

Consider how the HPC currently does this in your answer.

Col

I dont think volunteer or enforced registration with any organisation can ensure the actions of an individual.

Afar as I am aware " the Technician is responsible for the quality and completeness of his own work" by act or ommission the buck stops with the EBME Tech at grass roots level, thats a legal standpoint, but nevertheless reality.

Which leads me to the thought , why would anyone want to be a EBME tech ?, anyone from the outside reading the above would be amazed, the volume of Clinical and Engineering knowhow and expertise required is vast, the responsibility, huge at times, we all know why we do it of course, we love it and the odd beer helps

I would say that it appears that there is now developing a route and a choice for everyone, whatever floats your boat, you want to change, do so, you want to register, do it

As for being a more professional, better represented bunch, remember that at one time, Radiographers pay was in fact much less than a Ray Engineers, this is most certainly not the case now and has everything to to with how, as a proffession they changed and as a consequence, the strength they gained.

Darren

Thanks for the comments Col and Mr Ling. I was just sticking my oar in and stirring the water, so to speak !

It's odd how so many of these discussions get personal. Everyone is entitled to an opinion - even if it's wrong - and everyone else should be prepared to allow it an airing. If it gets shredded, then the originator should be prepared to argue the case, re-assess - or accept defeat and withdraw - not get involved in caustic attacs / retaliation.

It's just not British

I am happy for Huw to strike any of my comments that he feels I may have made that are defamatory towards other individuals.

Mr Ling,

I am sure that you could not have made any defamatory remarks towards other individuals as to do so would contravene rule 14 of the "Rules of Professional Conduct" for the VRCT which you say you adhere to!