Home Articles Downloads Forum Products Services EBME Expo Contact
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,020
Hero
Offline
Hero
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,020
Clare and everyone
My posting was put out as I feel that there needs to be a structured training plan in place for technicians. It is all very well saying you need this and that but there needs to be the infrastructure in place to provide it.
And when the compulsary registration scheme is in place those going throught the training to get their experience and qualifications will need to be able to be released from "normal" duties for a periods of time. Will these posts be supernuminary? Will there be new training posts created like the grade A medical physics training posts?
I am all for registration and the training and experience that goes with it......as long as it can be properly provided.
Robert


My spelling is not bad. I am typing this on a Medigenic keyboard and I blame that for all my typos.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 969
Likes: 1
Roy Offline
Philosopher
Offline
Philosopher
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 969
Likes: 1
So it's back to the discussion about whether someone with a degree is equiped with the knowledge and skills required to become a Medical Equipment Technician. There seems to be general agreement that the answer is "no" unless there is a proper training scheme in place - or maybe a specialised degree course which would hopefully include some on-the-job training.

Most department heads I know agree that taking on a new starter with no previous hospital experience places a huge strain on the department and seriously effects "productivity". The New Boy is a drain on limited resources - at least for a time, untill they can safely be left to get on with it by themselves. So "proper" training can only realistically be provided by the large departments - who must be funded accordingly and must accept that they will lose the majority of the people they train to other hospitals.

If such training isn't available and there aren't enough graduates coming through the specialised degree route, then registration is going to mean either lots of vacancies or lots of departments struggling to train people with limited resources, limited budgets and limited time.

Result = poorly trained technicians who take years to aquire the knowledge and skills necessary to allow them to achieve their potential.


Today is the day you worried about yesterday - and all is well !
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Rojo's right in my view. Not all departments are big enough to support the demands of structured training or provision of adequate supervision to trainees or supernumeraries full-time. Plus there may not be the knowledge-base and skills mix of individuals on-site to give that training and support whilst trying to keep the on-site EBME or Medical Physics services ticking over.

I think structured training can only be provided for all entrants to the same standards, nationally, if accredited centres, located around the country at sites that can support on the job training and continuing professional development are used.

Until then managers in Medical Physics or EBME will always face the dilemma between balancing the manpower and other available resources available to keep the services going and the need to train technicians. The situation we are in now I think.

However, in the future because of regulation, we might not have the flexibility of employing low grades, calling them 'trainees' or to employ 'less than ideally qualified individuals' on working grades that don't reflect their initial value and receive on-the-job training that varies considerably from department to department.

It seems to me, that the workforce is in it's current state because many Trusts have not and do not want to invest in skilled NHS personnel who are employed in a job-role that's in demand like we're told ours is. Those who might be lost as soon as they're trained; to other Trusts prepared to 'dangle a carrot'.

The infrastructure is there in Regional Medical Physics Departments, to some extent, for the Clinical Scientists training and I suppose this could be expanded to Clinical Technologist training. Whether trianing facilities like these will be extended to 'cover' EBME services or made available to them or not I don't know.

I'm still of the opinion that EBME engineers may face a different training and possibly career path than those employed in Medical Physics. Hence my concerns about the original HPC application for regulation that initially divided 'Physics' and 'Engineering' and did not include any reference to 'life-sciences' qualified individuals at all; as far as I'm aware.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Roy,

In my opinion qualifications - i.e degree or no degree is not the issue - we need to get away from that 'old fashioned' thinking. Eventually all trained technicians will have or should have a degree or degree equivalent qualifications that satisy everybody concerned. It's not about experience versus qualifications anymore - it should be about having the same level of skills and competences based on the training you've received fullstop.

Whether the training started out with a degree and developed experience and skills (possibly academic route) or whether it started out as a hands-on experience and skills being practised and ended up with an academic qualification (the vocational route). Both equivalent - no arguments. The training needs of, initially, degree qualified and those of non-degree qualified entrants being satisfied and competence proven at the end of training.

I think we have to admit that most departments' training is simply not up to it for various reasons. A 'Lack of resources' and 'no requirement to provide structured training to a nationally accepted standard' are convenient terms that must be forcing managers to go for the cheapest option every time in my opinion.

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 56
col Offline
Scholar
Offline
Scholar
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 56
Clinical scientists are registered with the HPC.
From what I understand the route is via the Grade A training scheme, the entry requirements being a first or upper second class degree.

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/nhs-knowledge_base/data/4842.html

The traing scheme involves the completion of a masters degree

http://www.medphys.soton.ac.uk/
Quote
leads to DipIPEM and is open to graduates with a good honours degree in an appropriate science or engineering discipline, with or without an accredited MSc. Those not already holding an accredited MSc will pursue such a course in Medical Physics or Bioengineering at the University of Surrey, full-time, during the first year of training.
Unquote

From this I deduce that registered clinical scientists hold a masters degree and have a dedicated training route that can be sponsored by the NHS.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Yes, I think the Grade A training provides graduates with a relevent postgraduate qualification e.g. M.Sc in Medical Physics and training under supervision. At the end of this the trainee will have been assessed for competence by exam and assessment I think. Training and assessment is done by placements within relevent departments. A candidate completing the grade A training is eligible to apply for grade B posts and then progress through the system.

Quote:
The infrastructure is there in Regional Medical Physics Departments, to some extent, for the Clinical Scientists training and I suppose this could be expanded to Clinical Technologist training.
What I was getting at about extending the training to Clinical Technologists is that the Clinical Scientists could help provide the academic stuff and are usually involved in the provision of Medical Physics equipment maintenance (including Radiotherapy and Diagnostic X-Ray) and have links with Universities and other departments. They are set up, in some respects, to branch out into training, or at least the organisation of Technologist training, by Technologists, in their departments. Certainly for 'Physics' Technologists anyhow.

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 34
Visionary
Offline
Visionary
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 34
Just to let everyone know.
I contacted IPEM on 22/10/04 and enquired what was happening with regard to registration. I was told that they had no information yet, they where waitng to be told.

Nice to be keep informed.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 160
Mentor
Offline
Mentor
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 160
Registration agreed.

This is from http://www.ipem.ac.uk/ipem_public/article.asp?aid=1171&id=

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this year the VRCT Assessors Panel wrote an article in the IPEM Newsletter to provide news of progress with the application for regulation of Clinical Technologists by the Health Professions Council (HPC). Since that article appeared much has happened.



The first important development is that, at its meeting held in October 2004, the HPC agreed that the Clinical Technologist profession should be recommended for regulation, without condition. The next stage of this process is for the Department of Health (DH) Regulation Branch to undertake public consultation. Then formulate the necessary legislation, which will be laid before the Scottish and UK Parliaments in 2005. This will mean that the profession will be regulated by the HPC in late 2005 or early 2006. At this point the voluntary register will close. In addition a three year transitional period, expected to end in 2008/2009, is anticipated. However, before we reach that summit, there are a number of key issues that require to be resolved. Including the impact of this decision on: future entrants to the profession, those currently in training, employers, commissioners, and education providers.



Reaching this position has not been straightforward as, prior to this decision being made, the officers of the VRCT held numerous meetings with both the HPC and the DH to discuss and agree aspects of our application. At those meetings important issues such as educational standards, standards of proficiency, scope of practice, agenda for change and the healthcare science career pathways were raised as important indicators of the way forward for the profession.



A key point to report is that the dual entry qualification model of a Medical Physics Clinical Technology degree or Clinical Engineering HNC/HND has now been abandoned. The constituent professional bodies of the VRCT have accepted that the educational standard required by the DH is a qualification that can be independently assessed using the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) assessment system. As this assessment process does not oversee HNC/HND courses, there is now no case to pursue the dual entry qualification model. Thus we have agreed that the minimum entry qualification for the profession will, in the future, be an honours degree in Clinical Technology. This degree will be divided into two branches: Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, and will be vocational in nature, comprising academic modules and competence-based practical training.



It should be stressed, that those already on the voluntary register or, currently aspiring to join, do not require to possess a degree in Clinical Technology in order to be regulated. However, by 2008/2009 all new entrants to the HPC statutory register will require to hold a degree in Clinical Technology.



Another important issue has been concerns raised by others regarding the need to regulate Clinical Technologists working in Clinical Engineering. On 26 November 2004 the Chief Scientific Officer, Professor Sue Hill, organised a meeting with all interested stakeholders to discuss this issue. In attendance were representatives of: the VRCT, the devolved UK administrations, NHS Estates, DH Regulation Branch, NHS staff side trades unions, educational providers, Strategic Health Authorities, Heads of NHS Clinical Engineering departments, IHEEM, ART, IIE and IPEM. The outcome of the meeting was extremely positive. All attendees agreed that it was of fundamental importance to ensure that those working in clinical engineering were regulated and that the appropriate qualification should be an honours degree in Clinical Technology.



Although all of the major hurdles to regulation have been cleared there is still much to undertake. The main issues to be resolved are listed below along with the steps being taken (in italics):



1. There are insufficient Clinical Technology degrees in existence. By September 2005 there needs to be an increase in the number of courses available. Our conservative estimate is that between 80 to 120 places will be required per year.



There are already a range of Clinical Technology degree programmes in place which mainly support those working in medical physics areas such as nuclear medicine, radiotherapy and radiation protection but Clinical Engineering has only a few. The VRCT and the DH have now established a VRCT Education Providers Group. This was primarily done to support the development of clinical engineering degrees. A number of universities have expressed interest, including: Paisley, Swansea, Bradford, Nottingham, Leicester, Bournemouth, Teesside, Kings College London, NESCOT and the Open University. We also expect others to become involved. This group has held two encouraging meetings and are now working with the National Occupational Standards project to develop the work further. A third meeting will take place in January. We anticipate that by then substantial progress will have been made.



2. We require to develop processes to accredit prior experience and learning which will count towards the acquisition of a Clinical Technology degree.



The education providers have indicated that it is entirely feasible to introduce such processes. Thus those wishing to join the profession who have HNC/HND or equivalent will be able to acquire a Clinical Technology degree in a reasonable time scale. This will be achieved through the accreditation of prior and experiential learning, and the acquisition of additional educational modules and workplace training.



(Note: This means that we will continue to attract into the profession those holding HNC/HND/equivalent qualifications or specialist practical skills. It also ensures that, in the future, all entering the profession will be guaranteed structured, competence-based education and training which is independently assessed.)



3. The IPEM Clinical Technologist Training Scheme, which will play a key role in the transitional period, requires to be updated.



It is anticipated that the IPEM training scheme (under the auspices of the VRCT constituent professional bodies) will be used to accredit training and education processes through the transitional period up until 2008/2009. The IPEM Clinical Technologists' Education and Training Panel are currently actively reviewing and rewriting the Training Scheme in readiness for regulation.



4. In order to meet the needs of the HPC we require to develop Standards of Proficiency for the profession. These describe safe and effective practice which registrants are required to meet. We also need to describe in more detail the scope of practice of the different strands of the profession.



These tasks are currently being undertaken by the VRCT Assessors' Panel and will be completed in early 2005.



5. We need to agree guidance with the DH on the processes required to deal with those in training or not eligible to join the Register at the time of regulation.



The VRCT's constituent professional bodies are working with the DH to agree the necessary processes. Once agreed, this information will be widely circulated.



6. We need to encourage all who are eligible, who have not already joined the voluntary register, to do so.



The VRCT's constituent professional bodies will work with the DH to enable recruitment of all who are currently eligible to join, and to encourage those who are not to become registered on the IPEM Training Scheme.



7. There needs to be a campaign to raise employers awareness of impending regulation and to ensure that financial support is in place to support trainees undergoing degree programmes and workplace training.



Again, the VRCTs constituent professional bodies will work with the DH to educate employers on developments and to ensure that NHS Workforce Development Confederations provide funding for the degree programmes. This will include the associated work based clinical placements.



As you can see there is still much to do before regulation occurs but the future well being of the Clinical Technologist profession is assured. We would urge you to embrace these developments and raise awareness with your colleagues, within your organisation and with all other interested parties.





The VRCT Assessors' Panel:

Jim Methven (IPEM)

David Gandy (ART)

Mick Wingell (IIE)

Andy Mosson (ART)

Andy Iles (IPEM)

David Burrell (IPEM)

Stuart Slade-Carter (IIE)

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 213
Master
Offline
Master
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 213
What is happening to all those techs out there with just ONC.

ONC is the entry level to get into this job, dose this mean it will be changing to degree standard.

Will ONC be aloud to work after 2008, or will I still be working and getting some one else to sign of the job.

It will be handy if the Open University dose runs coarse in clinical technology, as this will be the only way forward for a lot of people.

A.M confused


Barry

Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 142
Expert
Offline
Expert
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 142
It doesn't look as if the onc, hnc, hnd, or the level 3 C&G's will be good in the end.
so why not force everyone to get A Deg. in Clinical Technology and inforce CPD on Everyone.
No cop outs for BEng.or anything else.
That way everyone jumps through the same hoops,
i bet the degree,ers will not like that

Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  DaveC in Oz, RoJo 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 3,772 guests, and 235 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Janet, james_on_ebme, Biomed Egypt, Nektarios K., Keisya Andretta
10,364 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics11,255
Posts74,507
Members10,364
Most Online59,530
Apr 30th, 2026
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5