EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues The VRCT Website

So essentially Geoff, you and I agree that a registration model is the correct way forward? It is just the fine detail we disagree on! Thus, with a little effort, we could actually agree on what we need to do to ensure that the Medical Engineering profession is developed appropriately?

Jim

Hardly "fine detail", Jim. Fundamental disagreement is more like it, I would have thought! Voluntary Registration and Certification by examination are two different things (two different approaches), are they not? And I imagine it will take more than just a "little effort" to convince you to scrap the VRCT altogether!

As your website clearly points out, there are fundamental differences between the Health Professions Council (HPC) and the Engineering Council (ECUK). I see no reason why those of us who are engineering technicians need to be, in effect, "doubly regulated". As was hinted at earlier, to my mind it all harks back to the age-old Medical Physics versus EBME turf wars (life's too short)! Personally, I see no need for all these little gangs (societies, institutes, associations). There are far too many of them. If people need somewhere to make their case, and vent off a little occasionally, why not do it right here?

I appreciate what you were saying earlier, Jim, but I would suspect that the "strength of feeling" expressed by some on this thread simply demonstrates that many biomed techs simply do not agree to the VRCT ideal (if that's what it is). My take is (now that I've taken a look at your website), many of us have no business being on the Register anyway (ie, because we are simply engineering technicians of the hands-on type), as we are, in no shape or form, either "Clinical Technologists" or "Health Scientists". The resentment is there because many seem to fear that NHS biomed posts will soon insist on VRCT membership. Personally, I doubt that this will be the case for those involved in maintenance and repair work. But, as I have already said:-

Dear Mr Methven,
I choose not to hide behind a cloak of anonymity but I can understand why other people do. This is a public forum where personal opinions can be freely expressed. Maybe now you can see your VRCT is not universally liked for a number of reasons. As I am not member of your list I certainly haven't broken any of your rules. As stated the reason I am not currently a member is because I don't know enough about it to make an informed decision although like most people I find it strange that I will have to pay someone to let me keep my job.

I also find it strange that you have arranged not one but two presentations in Scotland and that I have never been invited, so yes the EBME people here in Aberdeen would like a presentaion on the VRCT. We need answers to questions like, Will I lose my job if don't/can't join. I will e-mail you to see if a presentaion can be arranged.

Your code of conduct also states "Take all reasonable steps to maintain and develop professional knowledge and
competence, ensuring that people working under your supervision do the same.
Maintain a record of evidence of your Continuing Professional Development and
ensure that those working under you do likewise" and yet none of the people that I know who joined are doing this. How do you intend to police this and what do I do about my colleagues who are obviously not fulling their obligations.

Overall it is not a question of whether or not to join the VRCT. It is all about how to get on the compulsory register that WILL be here in the next couple of years. The government have made it abundantly clear that all professions linked to patient care (not just direct carers) will be regulated.

In my personal view the best way to prepare for registration was to join the VRCT and get a good trial run of CPD etc. whilst my job was not on the line. If you want to know what happens to those in regulated professions who let their registrations lapse just ask in your local Pathology lab, as they seem to have bourn the brunt of recent HPC "management issues".
Basically, not being registered will not prevent anyone from working, BUT, they will have to be supervised which will, probably, affect afc banding.
I am not saying that regulation is a good thing in itself, but closing your eyes and hoping it will go away is never a good idea.

New jobs all round then I think.

Its very rare that I post altho' I read with bated breath some of the issues I see, personally I think the way forward is via VRCT etc no matter what our moans profesional registration will happen, those that are against it tuff get over it!!
All I will say is sorry people if I've ruffled some feathers!! Stop living in the dark ages.

The actual work of providing technical support to the users of medical equipment will still be there and needing to be done. What if no-one had their name listed on the "Register" ... would management (and the government etc.) let the unserviceable kit just mount up, and have the user departments rendered "unfit for purpose" one by one? Are techs working for outside companies "clinical technologists"? ... they certainly don't appear to meet the "spec" given on the VRCT website!

It aint on my terms of reference or my contract anywhere about registration. We are employed to do a job we do it so this worry about if you are not registered you will have to be supervised (by who!!!) is complete [censored].

If everyone stands together there will be no registration implemented unless it is free their choice. I have no problem with registration just giving away money to faceless individuals who do what in our name.

There are a few thousand included on the VRCT. if employers must employ individuals that are regulated by the HPC then I guess they need just enough in each scope of practice to run a service.

I think it's pretty obvious that the VRCT is already influencing the requirements for fully qualified "technicians" already working in healthcare. It's intended to drive standards of training, qualifications and experience, up not down.

VRCT is about laying the groundwork so that individuals who will be eligible to use protected titles working in healthcare, thus be identified as fully qualified, working within the relevant scope of practice, can move over to the HPC register.

It's up to the employer to implement the mandatory aspects of HPC regulation, such as use of protected titles, providing CPD resources, becoming involved in training/education, setting up the career structure within their organisations, etc.

Regulation has benfits as well as drawbacks. Not everybody is going to be eligible. From what I see those that aren't eligible don't seem to be the types that want to progress, want to improve their situation. If they don't want to they don't have to.

The politics of registration, regulation, etc, etc, have been going on for many years. Regulation has been on the way for a very long time. Heads in the sand will not make it go away.

I have read almost all the arguments about the VRCT - I have decided to go to one of their briefs and find out what all the fuss is about. If i dont think it is worth it then i won't bother!

P.S A big thank you to Geoff & Bill mcg on their advice on this matter.

All the Best

Darth "Still not a real" Welder