EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Professional Regulation

Exactly - but not everyone likes to follow like a "sheep", put "their money where their mouth is" unconditionally, without the benefits being stated categorically and updates, RE: progress, being given. £10 a year is nothing to me, I meet the requirments, on paper, I support the idea of VRCT, regulation (in principle) and the potential benefits as I see them; considering other NHS professions that heve been regulated. The intentions of VRCT are good ones, on balance, as far as I see it, personally speaking.

Paul,

I've worked in EBME and Medical Physics doing the same job for a number of years in each - I've not come across differences in the aims or with the quality of the work done wherever I've worked. My concern is exactly that this continues and that we don't have different regulation applied to those involved in maintenance wherever they're employed.

However - there is additional categorisation and differentiation of technician roles in maintenance, potentially, under AfC and regulation may reflect this - all I asked for is clarification on this position.

Mr Ling
I believe that there are different standards.
There are different standards from one EBME Department to another as well as the same department on different sites. We unfortunately were given no real choice in the matter, we were told we are to join as part of the AFC, and as such the first payment was met by the Trust. In saying that I am former member. We are still trying to asertain to what standard Both professional bodies are claing to adhere to, Without much Success. The Politics and red tape are strangling the services we are supposed to be providing, too many people with personal agenda's instead for working for a common goal.
"WE ARE ALL EQUAL BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" YEH !
It is refreshing to know that I am not alone in taking a view of the larger picture.

I would assume that job desciptions under afc
would vary according to your role. the fact that
you have different types of technicians under the
VRCT shouldn't matter. your job has or will be matched to a national profile under afc i.e. a
medical engineer to med eng tech etc

Dic
Have you information that it will become more difficult or is this more speculation.

AND
Have you evidence of better banding.

This is an open forum and as far as the majority of correspondance, Engineers within Medical Physics, EBME or whatever department name are just wanting information, which does not appear to be available.

Paul,

The differences between Medical Physics and EBME are not just involving Medical Engineering/Equipment maintenance - Medical Physics Technicians work in a range of roles. At the moment the VRCT gives a significant number of EBME and Medical Physics Engineering Technicians the impression that they will be regulated along with the rest. The evidence I've seen, in the public domain, indicates that, as those involved in medical equipment maintenance, we could be paying our £10 for a good few years yet. Medical engineering technicians, boosting the numbers in the VRCT, will have helped to justify regulation of the rest if this is the case.

That is my concern - all I want is an indication of the time frame involved or at least an update - from anybody. It's likely that colleagues in Medical Physics will be regulated (those in diagnostic mesurments, R&D, etc), in the scenario I envisage. EBME technicians (the substantial majority employed in Medical equipment maintenance) and a significant proportion of those employed in medical equipment maintenance in Medical Physics (employed under "Medical Technology" rather than "Clincial Science" biased job roles) may not.

Another concern. That's why I raise the issue of "Medical Physics" versus "EBME". Not because I have a something against Medical Physics departments - I worked in both EBME and Medical Physics - no difference in what they do in terms of euipment maintenance (that, in part, is why I don't want discrepancies in the future resulting from how regulation is applied to groups of technicians performing similar job-roles in the NHS).

Dave L,

I can accept what you're saying and I can appreciate the points you're getting at. I agree to some extent. But based on the regulation of other professions I think what Dic suggests is more likely than not.

Dave
Iam not sure if qualifications might come into the equation at a later date, speculating not heard anything. I assume this would apply to newer members of the med eng world.

Heres another slight on the registration.

If EBME and Med Physics techs are to be registered then is this true of every company that supplies medical equipment maintenance. Are we going to get to the point that we not only check a companies indemnity before allowing them to operate within our domains but we will have to check if the service engineer is on the list of recognized personnel. The cost of this registration on companies will no doubt be passed on to the consumer hiking up already inflated prices because it has medical written on it.

Also this all stinks of a closed shop mentality with limited ways in (unless you have someone on the inside!!!!!).

I agree with a registration in principal as long as it is free or if the company or trust that you work for pays it, as they will be the ones enforcing new rules on us.

What will it achieve is another thing we have to ask. Will it get the job done any quicker, Will it get it done any cheaper. And again the big question how much!!!.

Billy
Picking up on your points regarding checking external engineers. I have recently attended a local meeting with our H & S advisor. This meeting related to the control of contractors required by HSE and all contractors will be expected to complete a questionnaire on their own H & S policy and the competency of their engineers. On top of this, it is my understanding that all who maintain medical equipment, will be required to be registered.