EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues The VRCT Website

Yes, Richard, but it doesn't make it right! What is the actual aim of all this ... protecting patients? How does it do that, then?

As I keep saying, at least a Certified BMET scheme will ensure that those who are qualified in such a way will have actually proved their competency in an open, transparent (international, even), manner.

How does BMET achieve this? Do all individuals working as technicians working in healthcare in the US/Canada have to sit this exam (and have a biomedical engineering degree, relevant training, plus relevant experience, of course)?

You're saying regulate the "fully qualified", i.e. certificated, individual, not the post they hold, irrespective of their employer, as long as they carry out the work of a biomedical engineering technician, am I correct?

This would mean more stringent and restrictive requiements on individuals (even for those currently in post, who'd have to sit an exam to continue working) would it not? I am beginning to like it. How can this be driven forward then?

... answer?

No, not everyone is a CBET. I'm just taking the view that this is probably a better way of moving forward. Just because a person does not support VRCT does not necessarily mean that he has his "head stuck in the sand" (or anywhere else, for that matter).

If CBET doesn't apply to everyone then how do we prevent those technicians that are not certificated from doing harm?, i.e. how do we regulate those who are not certificated?

Who decides what roles can and can't be undertaken by non-certificated personnel?

Surely a degree in clinical technology and/or vocational training provided by a training department/fully qualified trainers and hands-on experience, plus regulation, or "certification by HPC", that is endorsed and implemented by a professional institution (IPEM) and employers (e.g. NHS) in healthcare is as good a scheme?


The protection being provided by (for example):

1). Only employing individuals who are "fully qualified" in roles that have the potential to do harm.

2). Enabling supervision of those that aren't fully qualified so they do not have the same potential to do do harm.

3). Ensuring that competencies, knowledge and training are maintained.

I will admit that a formal examination similar to CBET/BMET, taken every few years, for example, appeals to me.


I take it from your response, Geoff, the answer is no - is this actually the case? So what prevents those who are not certificated from presenting risk to themsleves or others?

It'd be interseting to hear from any of our colleagues in the USA or Canada how the system Geoff mentions is intended to work (or how it actually works).

We have zillions of laws in England, we have the most "security" cameras per capita than anywhere else on Planet Earth. We are probably already the most regulated of societies in the Universe.

And yet we are still infested with scag-heads, "sleeper terrorists", hoodies, "job seekers" on perpetual benefits, and people who don't want to work (thereby necessitating armies of foreign workers to invade our shores). We have local council spies looking in our wheelie-bins, police who take great delight in constantly closing our arterial highways for extended periods, we have endless "risk assessments" aimed at stopping people doing the jobs they have always done, and all the rest.

We also have a so-called National Health Service that often gives a shoddy service to the sick and needy it's meant to be there to serve, whilst providing the last public sector "safe haven" for thousands and thousands of people who have never done a real day's work in their entire life.

And you ask me "how do we prevent technicians from doing harm"? Simple, once they are found to be below par, or found lacking in any way, they get fired. How does that sound?

I rest my case, and hereby retire from this futile debate!

Unfortunately, Geoff, based on past experience and for some of the reasons you've already been kind enough to elaborate on, I think that technicians who are below par have actually been employed, or promoted into roles they're not qualified to do, precisely because we don't have regulation. Yes, and some of us are trying to improve that situation by whatever means is available - even if it means having to take a "path of least resistance" to regulation that may not be ideal for everybody. Incidentally I'm on holiday - so my posts are on my own time today. Before anybody assumes I'm posting on NHS time.........

To add to the mix, what makes an EBME tech any more qualified than a electronics tech. My qualifications as an elctronics tech have been ok up till now so whats the difference because I sure as hell cant see any.

You test/calibrate to the manufacturer specification as in any other electronics post. You sign to say that you have adhered to the test specification.

Whats so in need of registration in this job. I didnt see it in the other jobs that I have done, which have had more of a bearing on safety.

Richard,You asked the time between exams ( re-certification ) for CBET, it is 4 years, or it was in the 1980,s.
Tony. I can send more detail in a PM if you wish. T.

Thanks Tony.

Hello Geoff

The problem may be who do you 'fire' - the individual or the person that 'hired' the individual.

Barney