EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Professional Regulation

Spot on Richard ( as always ) Merry Christmas to you and all your colleagues in the Metropolis of Manchester. Here,s hoping for a Prosperous New Year too Tony.

In response to Jim at the VRCT, earlier this year (August 2005), I was asking for information regarding registration and FACTS about what was/is happening, Quotes from his reply are below:

Quote
May I respond to your email by indicating that the definitive facts about regulation are all in the public domain. There is not a "select few" who withhold information or send out inaccurate information.
Unfortunately, a representative of the HPC has misunderstood how the process of regulation of Clinical Technologists is proceeding. Hence the inaccurate information currently being circulated.

Therefore it was a select few as HPC didn't know what Jim alledgedly knew.

Quote
I should stress at this point that I believe it is the plan of the Department of Health to regulate all healthcare professions - non-regulation is not an option.
I also understand that the public consultation will be beginning in the next few months.

I KEEP ON SAYING I WANT FACTS!!!!
Are these facts or beliefs or guess work (the time has passed for it to be the next few months)

Quote
"Thanks for sight of this (copy of the email between BW EBME and KS of HPC) . I will speak to HPC but it remains the case that currently we expect Clinical Technologists will go forward in the first tranche of HCS to be regulated in 2006."
Please inform your colleague that he now needs to panic!!!

Why should we panic about joining a VOLUNTARY register.
When registration is required and if it is with the corrupt HPC we can join through the grandparenting route and not need any involvement with the VRCT.

As the VRCT are a VOLUNTARY body who represent a small minority of staff within the EBME community and probably less than 1% in private industry how can they express the views of this group of staff. YOU DO NOT REPRESENT ME!!!!

I also felt I was being attacked for questioning such an authority on EBME work and departments as Mr Methven.

GIVE ME FACTS!!!

Ps Merry Christmas to all

This topic has become a farce and it is the worst unprofessional set of exchange of Emails I have seen.

I am very privilaged to have a highly respected Medical Physics department who has Management of Medical equipment under its remit.

we do not use EBME name for the reasons of such emails.

can I suggest you all retract from such bickering and discuss professional issues and try and fly the flag for your profession.

I am registered with HPC and IPEM, and see no issues with such registration.

Alex Zarneh
Head of Medical physics

I'm sorry to see this debate fall into the realms of handbags! It’s too serious an issue to reduce to name calling or back biting. I believe the main problem is the lack of up to date information and open debate. I realise this has all been said before but due to the poor dissemination of information most of the people that will be affected have not had a chance to assess the situation. It is a fact that EBME staff would make up the majority of a group such as that recommended by the VRCT. It is also a fact that most EBME staff do not know what is going on. In a previous posting I mentioned that most of the biomeds that I have met at various courses/ seminars are totally unaware of the VRCT or that their jobs may have to change. I would like to ask the VRCT committee to get in touch with as many of the affected groups as possible and get the information out there. We need to know who is affected by the proposal and a breakdown of the numbers involved. As Mr. L above demanded, can we have the facts and figures please?

The thread was started (by me) to obtain a response from a representative group of individuals from organisations involved in regulation - to try to obtain some feedback. I did indeed receive some but not the response I was looking for. The honest and open representation of my primary concern being that the HPC and other organisations involved may actually be steering some of those, working in medical equipment maintenance, who are included in the VRCT, away from regulation under the healthcare scientist umbrella - with the majority being under the impression that everyone will be included in registration, when this may not be the case, initially.

This concern or worry of mine (seeing as I actually would like something along the lines of regulation to bring benefits such as a career structure and training, etc, etc) is supported by my interpretation of:

1. Statements in Dr Kevin Haylett's report, published on his website and referred to on this site, at the last meeting regarding regulation held in London recently. He has provided a comprehensive report - more than anything else I've read in the public domain from VRCT/HPC/NHS/DoH.

2. There are now, de-facto, profiled medical equipment maintenance occupations in "Medical Technology" and "Clinical Sciences" that imply that there may be some seperation between Medical Physics and EBME when it comes to equipment maintenance. Traditionally there has been little diffrentiation between MTOs performing maintenance in grading or job-description under Whitley as far as I'm aware. i.e. there may be engineering and science technologists listed on seperate parts of a register, possibly doing very similar jobs in departments, depending upon whether they're Medical Physics or EBME (Estates/Facilities) based on the job-profile that's applied by the employing department.

From the MTO structure where all medical equipment technician job-roles have been covered we now, under AfC, we appear to have Clinical Science Technicians (employed within Physics departments, engaged in maintenenace) and Medical Technology Technicians (employed elsewhere, engaged in maintenance of medical equipment). Look at the respective profiles.

3. A lack of positive information and reassurances from the VRCT/HPC/NHS/DoH.

What I got was a personal attack and accused of questioning indviduals' professional integrity - this would have been the case if I was actually attacking the VRCT comittee members personally - however I think my concern is that the VRCT may be used, conveniently, by other organisations, to other ends, without meeting the needs or expectations of medical engineering technicians specifically.

Just for Alex's benefit - I don't believe we are are classified as belonging to a regulated profession in the NHS, yet. Also I don't believe Clinical Scientists have an official say in how techncians conduct themselves on a public forum - so quite simply Alex - it's none of your business in my opinion. I defend the right to free speech, my own opinion and to defend against personal insult, attack or inferences of such nature - it's a public forum for God's sake not officially affiliated to any particular professional institution as far as I'm aware.

please guys we're all in it together. surely
being professionally registered is good for all
of us, both med engineers & med physics guys!
As a group we can only improve are status, the
£10 a year is offset by better bandings.

I agree - I've been registered since early-on. But I don't agree with those that aren't registered, i.e. Clincial Scientists, getting involved and stirring it.

I wish the VRCT would see that if people like me, who are pretty keen on the idea, are getting concerned then there are others who may be getting more than a bit miffed about the lack of information.

the main thing guys is to get yourself registered
before it becomes more difficult too, although
the "grandad" clause should apply.

Perhaps as EBME Technicians (for want of a better title) we should have our own organisation with our own voice, with an affiliation to I.P.E.M., much as A.R.T. has. It seems a significant percentage of EBME Techs are suspicious of the agendas of the professional bodies that are driving our profession, so perhaps we should drive it ourselves.
From a personal point of view I`d join the Cumbria Cats Protection League if I thought it would promote my professional interests.

EBME or Medical Physics?
Whatever your qualifications, ideas or expectations. Dont forget tha larger picture - we are all her to do what we do best, to the benifit of the patient, not to score points and a tit for tat slapping contest. It is as one member put it the right to speak freely and voice one opinion, It is also nice to see support for the perhaps lower ranks. (We all have something to offer not just some self Percieved Demi Gods).
Both VRCT & HPC members should look at their conduct and ask is this the way to behave to another professional member. If a personal comment is to be made this should be done privately. Call me an old stick ---OLD STICK lets keep things light hearted banter, without getting personal.