EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues The VRCT Website

I’ll never forget first day at pit. ‘we walked hame 43 miles through t’snow in ars bare feet’

Gents,

I have followed this discussion with interest, and get a sense of déjà vu.

Richard, by the number of people you have offended on this forum, I think you fail to grasp how many people have come into biomedical engineering from a different career.

1. I know it is difficult for somebody who has had to work hard and start at the bottom and work their way up, to then see ‘outsiders’ join at a similar grade. These skilled people have honed their skills and started at the bottom and worked their way up in a different industry. – It is known as skill transfer.
Believe it or not, other industries suffer the same issues of new people joining from another sphere at the same salary, it is not unique to the NHS.
2. The NHS doesn’t train its technicians from scratch, as far as I am aware, at least not in large numbers. Therefore it must get them from ‘somewhere else’.
3. I'm sure those that conceived VRCT, had good intentions, but it being hijacked by those who wish to put a stop to this and effectively have a closed shop.
4. The IET, IPEM etc, under the Engineering council set a standard for IEng. The standards for VRCT are lower than this. A graduate with 3 years experience in the medical profession (gained at university!!!!) can join VRCT the day they graduate. They are only eligible to apply for Eng Tech at this stage, They require 3 years industrial experience i.e further training from that at university to be eligible to apply for IEng. So do not try for one minute to attempt to convince me that VRCT sets the standards.
5. Standards of training and service must be set by local management. They should identify skills gaps and ensure the appropriate training is taken. It makes more sense to have a total quality system in place and at minimum Eng Tech, rather than have the edibility to join VRCT as a benchmark for competence.
6. VRCT will not stop those determined to cause harm from doing so. It only means they will be struck off. This is in every case I have heard of. The ‘relevant body’ only acts on a guilty verdict.


I expect you will be your usual self Richard in your response. We had a similar discussion on line over two years ago. The result of which if I remember correctly the moderator removed some of your posts and asked for you to apologise to the forum.

I joined VRCT, not because I agree, but I am pragmatic enough to see the direction it will take. I urge those not in the ‘club’ to seriously think about it. If VRCT get their way, you will not be allowed in their playing field, as it is their ball.

Regards
Colin

Hide of a Rhino me!

If you want to play the game, you need players ... not just the ball!

But as my good friend Richard has delicately pointed out, VRCT does not directly affect me. However, I do care about the "profession", and (contrary to your urging Colin), myself urge everyone not just to follow the herd and join!

Or put another way, let "them" stand in the middle of their field, with their ball, waiting for the teams to turn up. Meanwhile, we'll all be happily kicking about in the field over the back.

Geoff (the Ultimate Outsider, Out in Left Field)

All,

I have also been following this string with some interest.

If this were to succeed it would need a clearly defined engineering framework, which in my opinion already basically exists - Eng Tech, IEng and CEng. Start standard in clinical technology in my view could be pitched at say Eng Tech and build on previous experience, competence and knowledge and not having to look at devising degree courses - but look at equipment familiarisation and how it functions wrt the clinical application, conduct within a clinical environment and ways of achieving equipment proficiency during an initial phase/probationary period. This would also have the advantage of bringing in a degree of skill transfer to the profession, whilst developing functional competence.

I have no doubt that if and when the HPC get involved that they will consult very thoroughly before setting their standards of education and training.

The VRCT is a start in the right direction, and lest we forget that other engineering institutions already have a stake in this and would appear to be being involved.

Raising the game can't be such a bad thing can it? Lets look at what talent already exists.

Cheers

Yes, the framework does already exist (so why tinker with it?). And, again yes, Tech Eng is about right (and that is the case now, too).

We're all in favour of "raising the game", I should imagine. But how is the VRCT going to do that (or, in fact, have any positive impact at all)?

By the way, can I ask:- do you consider yourself to be a "Clinical Technologist", Fordy?

Nope, engineer first clinical technologist second, thats the entry route for me into this world.
Maybe another analysis of the main driver of why clinical technologists need to be registered and the answer probably lies with the arguement of the potential to harm patients/ entering into the realms of patient confidentiality/ethics and no doubt litigation. It is a bit like looking into the aircraft world where flight safety is paramount - is this not the same arguement when dealing with patients? There are criteria and integrity issues when dealing with aircraft and in my opinion this is no different to maintaining the safety of patients - may be this area needs more refining and where credibility can be enhanced?

Cheers

During my long years in this game, the "similarity to aircraft maintenance" issue has often been cited, but usually dismissed, I'm afraid (but let's not start another fracas).

My closing question is this:- if patients need all this "protection" (and, again, I fail to see what difference the VRCT can possibly make there, either) how have people like me "got away with it" for the last 34 years?

Exactly. Maybe the VRCT aim is to revise this area to provide some technical assurance to the clinicians we support, but it won't be the VRCTs job to make the change it will be who ever is in the chair at the front to evolve, and maybe the VRCT has begun the road to providing some standard direction in which to operate.

Well, I was going to call it a day, but I can't just let that one pass!

Have the clinicians we support had such a bad deal, then?

Who are the VRCT? What wonderful new ideas are they promoting? Are you (they) saying that we're doing it all wrong, and have been doing it wrong all these years? Are you (they) saying that those of us who basically pioneered this "profession" are just a bunch of old ******* (fill in whatever word you like to use)?

So that's it ... they're right, and we're wrong?

The VRCT hasn't began any road. And you're dead right about one thing there, Fordy, it won't be the VRCT gang or their like out in front. As I said yesterday:- Lead, follow ... or get out of the way!

In my opinion this is all about moving forward utilising what you pioneers have achieved. I can see that resistance to change is a factor in all this and although you may have been doing it right, how about making it better?

I had a technician once who resisted change, unfortunate for him I didn't get out the way.

Anyway signing off

Thanks for your input - your points have been taken. Cheers

Actually, Col, I think you're being a bit constructive with the truth there since I remember your comments were pretty offensive and were deleted (as well). For the record I certainly was not asked to apologise to anybody but I did, anyhow, off my own back.


Ho-hum.....

It is apparent after two years that it has really bothered you and I think it is a shame that you feel the need to make it personal and blame your problem with this entirely upon me - it's convenient to bring it up again, obviously.

If you're just taking the oportunity to make a valid point fair enough but if it's just to humiliate and win an argument that you weren't really in a position to discuss properly or very knowledgeable about, at the time, then that's a bit sad really. And that's coming from a sad bloke like me....

Anyhow I'm not going to argue - as you said, Col, the argument remains the same and now we have AFC and KSF, as predicted, and still we have VRCT and the prospect of HPC to come, eh?

What it means is that if my predictions of the detail are correct that it will be increasingly difficult to get into the profession and to get the grades unless individuals are "fully qualified". What it means is new-entrants will have to get their books outand not just "rest on their laurels".

Just as a bit of background there are individuals in this game, such as those in IPEM, IET, VRCT, etc, that look at the bigger picture spending their own time and making the effort, in and outside of work, to improve our lot as they see it. Without discussion then they will never know about issues like this.

I try to help individuals where I can, irrespective of their prior background. I do put my money where my mouth is and have become involved in a small way as an IPEM training moderator examining trainees basic skills, etc. I don't just talk it. There are "fast-track" vocational schemes out there.

In fact I must chase up my expense claim for the £300 I've laid out so far over the last year to do this, for accommodation, travel, etc. The 12 months completing a Diploma in Delivering Learning, plus the week or so of my own time writing the assessements, practical, viva, etc, plus the week of my own time spent doing them, etc, etc.

I guess I'm just one of those people "looking to improve the lot of the "profession", pull it up by the bootstraps, and assist where they can" in my own small way. I don't see much of this reflected in this thread - disappointing.

I was offered a position on the VRCT panel a couple of years ago and invited to sit in on a session before I made a decision - but I was asked by Jim Methven in a PM, outlining the offer, to keep quiet about it if I decided against it.

I didn't take up the offer. Since I don't owe Jim Methven anything and I don't intend to post on this or any other site again I thought I'd mention it.

I didn't consider this offer nor any of the offers I have had, to act as "expert" for companies and sit on panels, etc, because I like to stay totally independent and air my views - whether they are unpopular or not.

I guess my posts on EBME has encouraged them to ask me? So they're not considered "garbage-in-garbage-out" by everybody then.

Finally before I shuffle-off; My views are that we actually need individuals from a wide range of backgrounds with wide-ranging skills. That's a benefit. As I said two years ago there's no problem with anyone coming into any profession from elsewhere.

They just can't expect to come in at the working grade from day one without having to meet the requirements to do so in a regulated profession. We can't just compromise everybody else already in post for the sake of new-starters.

To achieve this there must be specialist training, whether that be fast-track, whatever, as I've suggested previously for those coming in skilled from the forces for example.

It's been convenient to "hit me" with accusations of bias against ex-forces which is totally untrue but it is a relevant issue in need of discussion. If you don't raise the issues and argue the points then no-one in positions to make changes to the VRCT or HPC system will even know about them.

Tim Cottles comments I found particularly offensive since they came from nowhere and have absolutely nothing to do with the issues except to try to humiliate and denegrate the arguments and me personally I might add. Nasty - and to say I'm full of my own importance after his last posting - hah!

I think people fail to see that as the largest employer in Europe, if not the world, that the NHS requirements, thus HPC legislation, will always tend to dominate the arguments, irrespective of the engineering aspects of the profession and our needs.

What we would like to see and what we will get will be a compromise that we will have little influence of, in my opinion, but at least we'll stay around a bit longer to push things further along as "professionals". Some change needs to take place and relatively soon.

I didn't set VRCT up, I'm wary of HPC regulation because it does have drawbacks, I don't agree with all aspects of it, and as I've posted many times before, at length, I take a very pragmatic approach to VRCT and HPC.

I do believe the intention is to roll AFC, KSF, HPC together for professions in the NHS - thus try to relate grades to competences, training and regulation. This is the NHS "plan" and it's unlikely you or I are going to prevent this.

Richard Ling BEng(Hons) MSc MIEE IIPEM

"So long and thanks for all the fish"!