EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Registration a debate

Dear All

I'm sure that no-one currently working in the healthcare environment is so "niave" as to think that they can avoid developing in their role as the service around them changes to meet the expectations of patients and fellow professionals. My own feeling is that the process of "registration" is in danger of becoming to restrictive, as was hinted at by another member of the forum, and that if entry is pitched too high then we stand loose valuable skills gained by personnel on lower levels of qualification already in post or from potential future empolyees. I believe there is a steering group due to report on "regulation of staff with lower levels of qualification" some time in 2007.

Not all EBME depts/sections deal with the same range of equipment. Some sections deal with equipment that at other locations might be dealt with by estates or facilities depts. If registration is to restrictive might not this lead to these depts loosing the skills mix necessary to enable them to meet the demands of the service they are expected to deliver? Perhaps some of these depts require the odd "tradesman" on their books?

Scott

As many will have already pondered with recruitment, what will my department have to offer to new fresh candidates on a development pathway.

Unless I can employ suitable candidates with existing degrees that would be suitable for registration, then any opportunities for in house and progressive learning will be heavily restricted.

What happens when the NHS allow (hospital wide) internal only applications for specific posts, do I turn eager people away from learning opportunities or do I offer them a pathway to a new career with correct supervision & support arrangements.

Do I have to warn them that they may not eventually be employed (as they wont be eligable for grandfather rights) in the post if registration decrees that certain qualifications are required. Sticky business!

Meanwhile, we still need to get on with the work in hand to deliver our services.

The intention of regulation is to prevent individuals that are not considered to be qualified, trained or experienced enough to do a particular job that's described by a specific title (personally speaking I don't care what that title is), from being employed in that particular job.

Irrespective of whether this is likely to enhance patient safety, or not, judging against established criteria is a sensible approach to employing somebody in any job role that requires minimum acceptable standards to be applied consistently; in my opinion.

Qualified = practicable skills plus experience?

Cheers
Mark

I've never seen a job description for any job advertised in Medical Engineering that doesn't specify a level of academic attainment. All employers (particularly the NHS since the organisation has outlined the requirements for each grade, explicitly) think this is the case, irrespective of the job at whatever level. What's at issue is the qualifications (relevant knowledge, skills and experience) required to do the a job at a particular grade.

I think individuals have to get real and look a bit closer at what's actually happening in the job market - not what they want, or don't want, to happen - regulation is a possibility and the requirement for HNC and higher is with us. I hardly ever see any jobs advertised for fully qualified individuals that specify qualifications less than the level of HNC or equivalent these days. De-facto, employers specify a combination of "paper" qualifications, experience and practical skills all backed up by evidence.

The problem we've had for a long time is that the demand for technicians in the NHS has pushed managers to employ individuals with knowledge, skills and experience, at lower levels than are required in specific job-roles, at particular grades, by the existing guidelines, i.e. Whitley Council (these were actually no higher for fully qualified individuals than the NHS & VRCT is pushing now, i.e. HNC which is L4 NQF).

Richard, I hear what you're saying.

I'm obviously approaching this argument from my own personal angle.

Right, this is me -
C&G 2240 Electronics Servicing Parts 2 and 3.
11 years' work experience within EBME.
Band 6 technician.

My employer is happy with my work. My quality of work has never been questioned.

Post Registration, not allowing for grandfather rights, I will no longer have the qualifing qualifications for my post! Will I suddenly not be capable of doing my job??

My qualifications and 11 years' experience, does that equal degree level? If it does, then why not have NVQ as the pathway. Is there anything wrong with vocational training?

I can only do my job because of the experiences that I have gained.

Shouldn't Registration be asking for, as an entry point, NVQ level 2/3? Then level 2/3 plus experience for higher bands. This, in my opinion, is not dumbing down our profession.

Cheers
Mark

Hi Mark,

My interpretation is that Under Whitley Council guidelines, with your C&G qualifications, you'd have been initially employed on a junior grade and be eligible to apply for a job on a higher grade after 10 years - the working grade (MPT3, which would be equivalent to MTO3 or Band 5 job-roles, where 10 years experience and an industry apprenticeship would be required). A promotion would not necessarily be automatic after 10 years either.

Alternatively, under the guidelines, you might have been accepted as a junior technician (MPT4, equivalent to MTO2 or Band 4 job-roles I reckon) with C&G qualifications and after only 3 years experience at MPT4 and after taking an ONC course, you'd be able to reach MPT3, the working grade. So the trade-off would be 7 years experience and an industry apprenticeship for two-years part-time study in electronics.

Thus academic attainment above G&G (even though the full-cert has always been regarded more highly than the ONC practically speaking) has always been the preferred requirement in this job. Not fair is it? These guidelines setting academic requirements were in place but usually ignored by employers. This has probably been the reason that now you feel "hard done to".

I'm guessing but perhaps you were actually lucky to have been employed on MTO2 and have been promoted since then or even luckier, initially, to be employed at MTO3, 11 years ago, based on previous, non-ME, experience. In departments where I worked or gained work experience around the Manchester area you'd need an HNC to progress up to MTO3 level and a few years relevant experience.

Employers have ignored guidelines, in the past, by employing individuals in more senior job-roles than their qualifications meet, on paper, without providing the means of developing them to meet the requirements whilst they're in-post.

This has helped in promoting a "why bother developing when I can progress without it?" attitude, in my opinion. So no wonder you now feel that the requirements for regulation should be lowered because you're doing the job at the level where registration is going to be required (but possibly not eligible only due to your academic qualifications). I don't blame you and I don't think you should be penalised for this.

For some time, when salaries were not good and demand was high, there was a tendency to appoint and promote individuals to higher grades without taking into account the fact that their academic attainment did not allow for this according to the guidelines.

What I'm saying is that I think that previous guidelines were abused and misused as and when it suited employers, leaving individuals with lots of experience and a disparity between their academic attainment and job-roles they fulfill - regulation and the associated requirements for qualifications, including academic attainment, would prevent this in future, in my opinion.

Richard,

Simple question - who out there, working in EBME, personally requires the academic content of a degree to do their MTO3 job?

Cheers
Mark

It depends upon the requirements of the MTO3/Band6 job you're doing and how you choose to apply yourself to it I suppose. My job is not just about fixing things - never has been. I do think the stuff I've done in the past is useful, obviously, otherwise I'd totally agree with you and say that academic qualifications mean diddly-squat.

It's not just about the course content it's about the transferable skills that are involved with doing these sorts of things. It's impossible to unlearn what you've been taught at any level, seperate it from other related experiences and then say that it's been of no use to you at all. I think you're asking a bit much there Mark.

Whilst I agree with Richard that it is impossible to forget your learning and be completeley objective about the qualifications required to do the job, when I look back to my days of aircraft servicing, in the forces, with only an ONC, I am inclined to believe that I would have been able to repair and service the kit that I am working on now. As I have said on this forum before, setting qualifications too high not only deters applications from the people you want to attract but also results in the wrong type of person getting into the job.