EBME Forums Forums Management Training Competency Based Training

This is the latest 'buzz' word around town and seems to be touted by most companies when we ask them about training delivery on newly purchased Medical Devices.

Can anyone involved in training, either in-house or managing of external companies tell me what is the Bench-mark for delivery of 'Competency Based Training'? I'm thinking: National Guidelines (equivalent to DB9801 Supp.1 etc.)

There seems to be a very loose interpretation of 'Competency' testing from Suppliers and the quality of delivery varies greatly [often to the point of justifying the label 'Incompetency Based'! Mentioning no names for litigious reasons].

We would like therefore to nail down the minimum that we should expect in content and quality.

All thoughts / experiences / suggestions welcomed.

As to training by reps/trainers, it's really hit and miss.

No national guidelines or minimum experience or qualifications of the trainers! Which I think is fundamentally wrong. People training others should be knowledgeable on the product and in facilitating learning in adults!

My advice is to ask them for their competency documents, but don’t go on that alone.

I've sat in on a few training sessions in the past and been absolutely appealed by what the trainers have said.

I didn’t realise until recently that it’s not always possible to receive training on devices. Perhaps it’s because we are a small trust, but some companies tell me that training is either costed very highly or they don’t offer it, but will gladly provide literature.

At the end of every session I use a discussion evaluation to determine if areas need to be re-enforced.

You have to remember that adult learners will not appreciate anything that looks like a test and the reflectionist style learners in the group will need to be catered for.

The competency books i have seen are massive and a lot of time would be need to work through them.

There is a city and guilds certificate in infusion devices, but some of the feedback, see nursetrainer.com, was very poor.

I would be very interested in your comments and how you train.

Training is a big issue with all medical products.

Their dose not seemed to be a standard level of training by the any medical company.

If EBME technician are going to VRCT / HPC register. The company training staff will also have to be registered to a higher standard. Company training staff helps hospital gain more good point for the hospital CNST rating.

A lot of company try and set up key trainer on site to help try and keep there cost down. This works well until the key trainer see a nicer job elsewhere. A few wards have practice development nurse, that train the other nurses on how to use the equipment. ICU has nominated F/G grade nurse to look after one or two piece of equipment and to train the rest the department.

How many times should you train some one to use a piece of kit?

Trying to get nurses release from duty for couple of hour on a busy ward is difficult. Some of the better company come in for the day and do drop in centre type training, which is good for small device (e.g. Tympanic's).

A.M

Hi Chris,

There's obviously been some interest, internationally, in producing definitive standards for medical device usage and training materials, etc, given that there are working documents for training and the safe use of equipment in existence. Seems they've been knocking-around for a while.

For example:

This report and
This explains that It's possible that these reports, and others like them, may eventually form the basis of international standards that British Standards might stem from in the future. Meanwhile they may be a useful source of reference, as documents produced by groups of experts, for those interested in looking for a definition of such terms as "competency based training".

Hope these comments are of some relevance to your initial question(s).

As with any training, it is important that the person giving the training is knowledgeable about the subject matter and is able to deliver that knowledge in a way that everyone can understand. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people (both hospital staff and company representatives) who feel that having been given the appropriate information are then able to teach others. Sadly, this can then lead to information being imparted that is incorrect, not understood or misleading.
It is also very important when dealing with medical devices that the training either concentrates on how to use the device and/or the clinical application; the two areas have to be dealt with by competent trainers.
Lastly, as pointed out before, there appears to be no standard for competency based training and it is up to individual organisations to make sure that the training received from companies and delivered to clinical staff (either by dedicated trainers or company representatives) is competency based and checked. This is the only way that the trainers can check that the information has been understood.

Having said that, I know from recent meetings that Codan now offer BACCN accredited training which reaches CNST level 3. As mentioned it is important that the user/staff take an interest but its a positive move in the right direction

It's one thing for companies and NHS organisations to devise competency training for operators but what level of qualifications and what guidelines should trainers/teachers posses to be deemed competent to train/teach/assess operators who intend to use medical devices? Ultimatey who regulates or controls this and what stops technicians from providing advice, ad-hoc training, or teaching sessions, when they may not necessarily be qualified to do so?

Richard
I think the onus is on companies and NHS organisations to appoint or designate dedicated trainers for medical devices.
These people should have appropriate technical & training knowledge/qualifications. Having clinical experience as well would be an advantage.
I think it is mandatory (as per my previous posting) that the training given can be given and understood with competency checking. To be able to do this, the designated person has to have experience in delivering educational information and be able to tailor the teaching to suit the audience.
Unfortunately, there are a number of "trainers" who think they can fulfil the above but in reality they only have the ability to impart their knowledge so that they can understand it!!
It is worth having any training "evaluated" by peers so that it can be modified as required.

At this time any NHS employer can appoint whomsowever they wish as a trainer. There is no formal framework or structure; i.e. no regulation. My point being that currently, de-facto, individuals' job-title can imply, hence convey, competence of the trainer to those who are being trained. Employers, i.e. managers in EBME/Medical Physics departments, who may not necessarily be in a position to assess employees suitability, i.e. they may not themselves be qualified or experienced in this matter, can bestow these job-roles and titles.

Even if teaching/training under the "competency based training" banner were being provided, under the circumstances described above, should/would such trainers/training actually be recognised by those who are qualified to provide such training, e.g, manufacturers' trainers who are formally qualified/trained, that do this to guidelines such as those posted earlier for example.

Unfortunately Richard you are right regarding there being no formal framework or structure and therefore no regulation. The onus is on the establishment to employ individuals who are professionally qualified or competent.
I suppose the same can be levelled for the criteria for employing "suitably qualified" medical engineers etc.