EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Registration VRCT Facts and fiction.

Hi Richard, at the moment, I don't think the consequences would be too high and this is something I am continually considering and can not make up my mind about - Kevin

Hi Kevin,

Fortunately I'm not in the position of having to decide whether to use a protected title (or not) nor am I in a position to influence whether Clinical Scientists should work in registered roles exclusively for that matter.

I think that if I'm employed in a protected role in the future and if I feel that I'm registered just for the sake of it, i.e. I no longer have any faith in the process, then I'll reserve the use of the title, e.g. Clinical Technologist, Clinical Scientist, for my CV.

Richard

Very impressive, Richard. Bravo!

Hello all,

Having been directed to here by a link I thought that I'd provide this bit of information.

The HPC (and the NHS I believe) feel that people who work in the Healthcare arena and are in a position to cause harm to patients either by inappropriate action or by taking no action at all should be registered to ensure that they have a basic level of ability and knowledge along with a professional work ethic to minimise any untoward risk to the patient.

Registration is quite simply, a managed list of capable and competent people who agree to work to a basic set of rules. (Because it is difficult to protect “Jobs” it is the title of the person who can be expected to carry out this work that is protected.)

Because of this, both patients and the people who employ such registered staff can feel confident that such registered staff will achieve the required outcomes safely and effectively.

I do find it amusing that some people are of the opinion that during the process of achieving registration the people involved are not capable of considering any national impact of such a registration or are unlikely to involve other professional groups and stake holders such as Unions, Industry, HEIs and other Professional Institutions.
Seemingly we are not up to it! And of course the other professionals, NHS, HPC, etc mentioned above are pretty dumb also! Come on, think it through please!

Likewise with the Clinical Technolgist Vocational Degree courses. The engineering content will meet I Eng standards. In fact, as clinical technolgists progress they can expect to become C Eng registrants competing for Head of Department posts with Clinical Scientists. This will improve the recruitment options of both the NHS and industry and may make some clinical scientists look to their laurels.

The VRCT was formed initially by members of ART and IPEM. These members gained the support of their Institutions. I wanted to know more about the VRCT and contacted them. I agreed with their aims and got involved. As a member of IIE and holding the Chair of the Medical Engineering SIG I enquired if the IIE would also support the VRCT. They agreed.

The VRCT is run by a panel with two members from each supporting Institution and the Registrar. It is an independent Institution, supported by ART, IPEM and now the IET.

Administration is provided by IPEM, the cost for this being covered by the small VRCT annual subscription. Travel expenses for meetings are provided by the supporting Institution.

Currently there are over 2700 members registered with the VRCT, from within the NHS and industry.

This current consultation exercise by the NHS is not VRCT specific by the way. It is just a general one on the benefit or otherwise of registering all non-medical staff. The VRCT consultation should come out later.

Finally, If anyone has any questions about the VRCT, please contact us via IPEM or IET Healthcare Technologies. We don’t mind and it is a more professional way of clarifying situations.
People can get carried away with assumptions and rumours. Ask the VRCT dont guess.


Many thanks for reading this, I hope that it has blown away some of the chaff from the situation.


Mick Wingell.

VRCT Panel Member (For IET)

Dear all,

Although not specific, it is my personal hope that the many points I have raised within my reports and letters to the HPC, DoH, Chief Scientific Officer and IEE (Now merged with the IIE) will be addressed seriously during the coming general consultations on professional regulation within the NHS. I feel these issues are not 'amusing'.

I am also looking forward to the specific consultation exercise that the HPC will be going through regarding the registration of medical engineers.

Some posts imply that the relevant issues have been addressed. However, I have attended meetings and tried to gain answers and details of any impact reports on current proposals. I have yet to receive any answers to the questions raised in previous reports, letters and posts detailed above.

Sadly, I don’t have time to go over all the points already raised. However, I can recommend the IET as an Institute to join and will hope to pursue these matters through my membership of that organisation.

Regards to all and keep well

Kevin

Hello All, again!

It is my intention not to get into tit for tat comments, But:-

I do not feel that the issues are amusing, only the fact that someone would think that they were not considered. Read it again please.

For answers to questions why not try the VRCT?

To the best of my knowledge you have not done this Dr Haylett. It seems that all you have done, in my opinion, is to seek to counter the VRCTs attempt to improve the lot of patients and Clinical Technologists by constant moans that you are not getting replies to points that you seem to think that only yourself have raised.

I will be pleased to disscuss this either through the IET Healthcare Technologies KN, or face to face at IET.

At least we have common ground in recomending that people join the IET.

Thank you for your attention.

Mick Wingell.

In my view information from VRCT has been scant to say the least. At least Kevin has expressed his views openly and has had the conviction to present them formally within the IET.

I agree with some of his views but feel that IEE was not particularly interested in the subject of medical engineering in the past to get involved in the registration debate, so why should their members who're already registered in other professions and not included in the VRCT be given a platform now?

Now the IEE has merged with IIE it's taken-on some of the the interests of the IIE and even IPEM, it seems, which means, unfortunately in some respects, that ex IEE "expert members in medical engineering" who should have nothing to do with VRCT now seem to have a say in what was actually nothing to do with membership of a professional institution, as such, when it was started - this was the case wasn't it?

IPEM administered VRCT, IIE and ART were affiliated - technicians in post on the VRCT decided the direction they wanted VRCT to go in, i.e. whether they agreed in principle to regulation, they joined, otherwise not, and this didn't have anything to do with membership of any particular professional institution - VRCT members still do not have to be members of any institution do they?

Why should anyone who is not included on the VRCT or be working in other non-technician job roles be allowed to push their noses in and decide the future of those that are technicians , irrespective of institution. If they are being allowed then there must be some reason for this and it implies to me that "medical experts" in other job roles will have a say what we do in our job role as registered professionals. No change there then.

I don't try interfere with the regulation of Clinical Scientists working in medical engineering even though on paper I'm an "expert" in Medical Engineering and a "technician". Perhaps I should but they've got the role so stitched up via regulation...........

I thought VRCT was seperate from membership of instutions, for now, and as such negative input from IET, IEE, IIE, ART members is not particularly relevant unless they're on the VRCT? Thus members of any instution who are neither technician nor included in the VRCT shouldn't have the right to interfere really.

Now ex IEE members, of which I'm one as well as being a member of IPEM and included in the VRCT (so I feel I have the right to comment from either perspective), who are already registered in other professions are lining up to have their say in what essentially should involve technicians on the VRCT not professional scientists or engineers who may already be registered as Engineers and Clinical Scientists and on other registers, i.e. those in different job-roles to those on the VRCT.

Who gave ex IEE members who are not included on the VRCT the right to interfere with the VRCT if the VRCT has never had anything to do with IEE and it's administered through IPEM isn't it?

I say we must resist interference and exclude non VRCT individuals, whatever their post nominals are, who are already registered with HPC in other job roles, from unduly influencing the discussion and we mustn't allow the VRCT to become kicked from pillar to post by different institutions in-fighting over who gets to influence the direction VRCT heads in.

VRCT should hold discussions with employers, DoH and HPC not other professions those that set themselves up to be our "superiors" and "know what's best for technicians", in my opinion.

I don't try to influence what happens with paramedics or ODPs registration so why should Clinical Scientists, i.e. the "medical engineering experts" that the IET wants to have input into the process on behalf of technicians, be allowed to?

Let technicians included in the VRCT decide what they want to do - not VRCT registrars, etc, and other professionals. Clinical Scientists had the choice whether to register without interference from other professional groups I believe. All i ask is for the same courtesy.

I wonder how many of those that oppose the VRCT and regulation via HPC in such meetings as this are actually working as Technicians?

Hello All, again.

The VRCT has gone down the path that it has because the choices were very limited.

Registration demands a that certain criteria has to be met for the application, and consquent progression.
Registration also has to meet various legal requirements.

Then there is an an Education providers group which had to ensure that the correct level of training could be provided to meet all of the entry levels. The NHS and the VRCT do not wish to preclude anyone from becoming members so "entry" and "step off" points have to be considered on the courses. A qualified Engineer should only need the clinical aspects to become registered, etc etc.

All of this takes time and whilst the VRCT were keen to progress, other key players had other things on their minds. Like a General Election!

All of this controled what news we had and when we had it! Any news that we could give came out in dribs and drabs and mainly to the registrants.

Whilst this was in progress, anyone who wished to know anything about the VRCT and ASKED US was informed.

The facilities at IPEM were used because they were there and available in the centre of the country. The support given has been tremendous. All of the application forms are sent out to assessors in groups of 30. The results are returned and then converted into letters that are then sent out to registrants. Resubmissions are handled as individual assessments and sent out as they come in. The records are kept on a computer, This has to be managed, Staff provded for recording the minutes. Opperational documentaion maintained and controled. etc etc. In short, it is this IPEMs support that has helped to move us forwards.
This has not been free of course, the £10 registration fee is paid to the IPEM. Value for money we feel.

In a similar manner, when we had to produce a Clinical technologists traing scheme for the HEIs the IPEM one was used.

It was there so why reinvent the wheel? Pragmatism has been a key player in this venture.

To ensure "fair play" a member from ART and The IET (now) are bonifide members of the IPEM Clinical Technologist Training panel.


I kept the IIE up todate and will do the same for the IET.

There are no secrets, no conspiracey. Just a group of people who believe in Registration and work very hard to achieve it.

One final point. At the start of registration, the VRCT contacted all of the relevent parties that could have been interested in being involved with the VRCT - I had joined by then - This included NHS Estates, Heads of Departments, Professional bodies etc. etc. Most did not reply. Those that did were generally favourable. Some wished us luck but could not comment because of their position. Only the people Still involved (Except one GE manager, who work-load increased and had to leave us, in capable hands he said)and the three supporting Professional bodies have been full time on this venture.

So, yes, we do get a tad fed up of professionals who can not be bothered to go to the horses mouth for the information they are suposed to be seeking.

I thought that was the firsat step of basic research!


Mick Wingell

Who says registration is a good thing for our profession?

Every job in the NHS has an effect on the patient. Is it a 'registration for all' scenario?

Wow, hang a minute WA(ward assistant), you can't possibly want registration....you haven't been to college/university.

This is a closed shop, after all.

Here, £10 is alot cheaper than £60ish - why the difference?

Cheers
Mark

Mick,

Can you point us in the direction of the VRCT information that you elude to? I had a look on the IPEM site and the "partners" drop down menu has a link to the VRCT but the page is blank. Also can you give us details of the VRCT panel, who they are and what their areas of speciality are?

Regards

Bill