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

Many of the engineers and technicians working in Medical Electronics and EBME departments in my area achieved an HND in Electrical/Electronic Engineering with specific medical modules as part of the course.
i.e. Clinical Instrumentation (2 modules), Physiological Measurement, Medical Imaging (2 modules) along with sections containing subjects like Hospital Administration & Finance.

It seems such a shame that there aren't more of these sort of courses available.

Colleges and Universities are unlikely to invest in setting up the relevant courses unless they see that there's going to be sufficient demand to give them a return on the investment and allow them to employ teachers, i.e. there's sufficient enrolment on courses to allow them to run for the duration. Courses aren't around because in the past employers have not had to train individuals to minimum, consistent, standards, i.e. there's been no demand for specialist courses. Even quality systems cannot ensure that minimum standards are achieved since whoever implements them can set their own standard.

If QM systems are implemented across a number of organisations then all they achieve is different standards across them all - standards that suit each organisations individual needs or agendas. What we require is a uniform standard, nationally, so that employers know what to expect from the staff they employ in terms of skills, experience and academic attainment - that's what protects patients and limits risk to all employers, whether in the public or private sector.

Setting minimum acceptable standards, nationally no less, is, I guess, what the VRCT has been trying to do for 6 years and more. IPEM was involved since it is the Institute for Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM just in case you're wondering) and as such has an interest. I believe regulation will do more than ensure that technicians are educated, give employers confidence or, ultimately, protect the patients - it will, hopefully, give a career structure that prevents "charlatans" (look it up in the dictionary) from getting in and bypassing individuals who want to meet the requirements and progress on merit rather than "blagging" their way into a job at an inappropriate level.

Regulation via the the HPC and cooperation with government and DoH will effectively "force" or require NHS employers, at least, initially, to cough-up the funding to train staff if they want to employ them in the protected roles. If the VRCT roles are going to be included on a HPC register then the employer will have to provide training and a route to degree after January 2007, for any new starters employed in a job-role that qualifies for a protected title, e.g. "Medical Engineeering Technologist", "Renal Technologist", Nuclear Medicine Technologist". The seven job-roles covered by the VRCT, I suppose.

In the past training schemes existed but they were wound down because of costs and the fact that irreponsible managers employed less than the ideal in job roles that required more. What's apparent to me is the HPC was brought about because the government began to recognise this fact. What's indefensible is that training provided for many of these individuals, who may not have had the skills required when they were employed, has been "hit and miss" depending upon where they were employed and irrespective of Quality Systems being in place in many departments.

Regulation will force training to be set up again, I believe. Remember this can include accedited training centres set up in Medical Physics and EBME departments following the IPEM schedule. In any case the necessity of vocational training to L4/L5 will then provide the demand that the colleges and Universities are looking for before they establish courses that are relevant. This is what's happened for ODPs who are now being regulated, as far as I'm aware, speaking to ODPs.

The IPEM training scheme is the only recognised scheme because no-one else has developed one at the appropriate level across the range of specialities - I can only assume this is because of the outlay in time/resourses, a lack of interest, generally, as is observed in some of the off-hand comments I see on this site, and the risk that regulation may not force the training issue. It's more and more likely the VRCT is going to set the recognised requirements for the transfer over to the HPC register for Clinical Technologists or whatever protected roles will be called.

I disagree that engineers should be allowed into any engineering related profession just because they have a few post-nominals after their name. I believe they must prove themselves and give evidence of what they say they've done and it must be relevant otherwise they end up learning on the job at inappropriate grades compromising others who are going through the career path.

A fast-track route is probably the best compromise for individuals who wish to change career - a fast-track scheme that requires them to re-train in the specialist areas and perhaps take academic modules before they attain a senior grade or are given responsibilites over lower grades who, initially, probaby know more about the job.

Another thing that has to be taken into account is that it's not only the health sector that is asking Colleges and Universities for specific courses, the aerospace, automotive and power generation industries all ask for specific courses and in some Universities it maybe easier to provide a generic electronics engineering course with perhaps a couple of options. It's hard to compare engineering with OPDs since Universities have whole sections setup for clinical studies whereas Clinical technologists are only a small subset of engineering and it's questionable if the required demand will very be realised!

Agenda for change has also proved that it's hard to set a standard between trusts so trying to equalise QM standards should be as equally hard.

Richard I don't think trusts will have to provide a route to degree, the VRCT criteria does state or approved training course. I suppose this implies that the training course will be set at a level equivalent to degree but this is questionable. It's going to cost trusts to either setup or send their employee's on these training courses and I'm sure the move to registration will alter some employees posts resulting in rebanding, so you've got to wonder where some of these trusts that are currently in the red are going to get this cash?

Also the Jan 2007 change to VRCT is going to open up a route for those who currently can't register due to a requirement for at least HNC/D. I get the feeling that for those who have been working in a clinical technologist role for sometime but not long enough for automatic registration that the approved training scheme is going to be like teaching your granny to suck eggs. Perhaps it would be more worthwhile to send these people on HNC/D but then again the sucking eggs route might be cheaper. Perhaps current training should be evaluated and a customisable fast-track route used.

One thing that worries me about the Jan 2007 changes requiring approved degree or training course is the entry requirements for the degree. In my experience a lot of practical training in engineering principles often come at a level way below degree level and often the first year of a degree is often just catch up for A-level students that never came in via the BTEC route. I know a lot of people say that degree students don't posses the necessary practical skills but I think this is due to the fact that courses basically squeeze what was two years course into one often at the expense of practical hands on experience. I can still see the possibility that someone could gain VRCT status but still not be competent without further postgraduate training!

Well there's apparently a workforce census on the way, to gather evidence for workforce planning and the commissioning of training for the medical physics and clinical engineering workforce, according to the latest VRCT circular I've just received.

http://www.canceruk.net/medphys.htm

If EBMEs want to be included then I guess their heads of department should register on this site as the circular suggests. The circular also suggests that employers be made aware that it is incumbent on them to provide proper funding and resource the education and training of new starters after 1 Jan 2007.

Bearing in mind that new-starters after 01/01/07 will not have access to any grandparenting provision thus not be eligible to join any register until they meet the primary criterion of the VRCT which is an approved vocational degree programme, or, an approved training scheme. I assume that means approved by VRCT/IPEM.

Chris,
My grumpy engineer did complete steraliser training whilst working for another company, copies of certificates where provided to the VRCT panel.

Who still maintain there stance that he does not qualify......

And all this census material will be held under the data protection act with the consent of those on it!!!!

Must be really grumpy then and I take it he's probably done quite a lot of generic and manufactures training courses, been in the post for sometime and like a few here the approaved training scheme is going to be the old teaching your granny to suck eggs.

Sorry to bring this topic up again. But it has just been pointed out to me that the new DB2006(05) has an anomaly in it.
Section 5.4 Training for Repair and Maintenance Service Providers says "For simple mechanical devices a qualification at NVQ level 2 may be appropriate. For more complex devices a qualification at NVQ level 3 or above may be required."
What happened to the requirement to have a degree to be registered and allowed to service equipment?
Robert

I would have preferred a definition of complex - what would a technician at Level 3 consider complex? Any takers? There are mechanics who've worked on Chinooks (how many million parts?) and other's who're working on radiotherapy and MRI.

Sounds like a nice job for your good self Mr Ling.
Does the number of parts make for complexity though?

Getting back to qualifications and the VRCT, personally I think education is second to experience! I would rather have an experience mechanic working on my car than someone who has got a large list Beng/MSc type lettering after their name.
I appreciate that some people work their socks off getting these letters (maybe I will one day).