|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,660 Likes: 61
Super Hero
|
Super Hero
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,660 Likes: 61 |
Could this be the new club, I wonder? 
If you don't inspect ... don't expect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr R J Ling
Unregistered
|
|
Mr R J Ling
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 601
Philosopher
|
Philosopher
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 601 |
I know it's Geoff's job to reawaken old posts (Age?) but I would like to rekindle this post in light of the "Modernising Healthcare Scientists careers" paper which was put out to consultation last month. Forget about the VRCT for the moment, I'd like to ask the question, do you consider yourself a healthcare scientist or not?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 745
Philosopher
|
|
Philosopher
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 745 |
No.
I fix equipment, manage the equipment Library and hand out advice mostly.
Technical yes, healthcare yes, scientific not very often.
Lee
Don't forget "we've never had it so good".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 85
Adept
|
|
Adept
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 85 |
It's not really important whether you consider yourself a healthcare scientist, the issue is what the DOH considers you to be; and if you work in EBME or any similar discipline then you'll be amongst the ranks of Healthcare scientists. This almost certainly means you will be required to register as a "Healthcare Science Practitioner" if you are band 5 or 6 (possibly 7) or as a "Healthcare Scientist" if on a higher grade. There are quite a few good points to the HCS proposals (training and funding for it) but there are also bad points like no direct transfer route from practitioner to scientist meaning good practitioners that want to progress have to leave the post they're in to go on a three year (paid) training scheme that may result in a new job the other end of the country. Personally I consider myself as a healthcare scientist because it pays more 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,660 Likes: 61
Super Hero
|
|
Super Hero
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,660 Likes: 61 |
I'd like to ask the question, do you consider yourself a healthcare scientist or not? , Bill (and thanks for the acknowledgment). As I may have said before (?), the traditional (and, to my mind, correct) terminology for what most of us do is Engineering Technician (or, perhaps, Technician Engineer). This is regardless of what Ministry goons dream up. Meanwhile, what terminology does the Engineering Council use these days?
If you don't inspect ... don't expect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 23
Dreamer
|
|
Dreamer
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 23 |
Would you be able to direct me to a link, please, where I can read a bit more about these DOH proposals? I've heard they want to call us Healthcare Scientists, but Science Practitioner is new to me. I agree with Geoff, by the way, regarding the blurring of distinctions between engineers, scientists and technicians. It's not really important whether you consider yourself a healthcare scientist, the issue is what the DOH considers you to be; and if you work in EBME or any similar discipline then you'll be amongst the ranks of Healthcare scientists. This almost certainly means you will be required to register as a "Healthcare Science Practitioner" if you are band 5 or 6 (possibly 7) or as a "Healthcare Scientist" if on a higher grade. There are quite a few good points to the HCS proposals (training and funding for it) but there are also bad points like no direct transfer route from practitioner to scientist meaning good practitioners that want to progress have to leave the post they're in to go on a three year (paid) training scheme that may result in a new job the other end of the country. Personally I consider myself as a healthcare scientist because it pays more
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 85
Adept
|
|
Adept
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 85 |
The consultation document is available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_091137It is almost certain that these proposals will come into force in some form and at this stage the best we can hope for is minor changes to the worst areas. (this appears to be mainly driven by the DoH desire to reverse the affect that AFC had on pathology grading structures) If you are in Unite/Amicus then contact your local rep as the union has been holding information/study days about this and they should welcome input. (Out of the ~55,000 NHS staff affected by this ~38,000 are Unite members with relatively few staff represented by other unions)
Last edited by Paul Allum; 10/02/09 4:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,660 Likes: 61
Super Hero
|
|
Super Hero
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,660 Likes: 61 |
I know it's Geoff's job to reawaken old posts ... Indeed. So, eighteen months or so later ... what's the latest on all this?
If you don't inspect ... don't expect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 85
Adept
|
|
Adept
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 85 |
"Modernising Scientific Careers" is starting the implementation phase with quite a few early implementer Trusts scattered about. No great thought seems to have gone into equipment management as yet since all the effort is going into "re-profiling" (for which read major down grading) of the pathology workforce. However once pathology have been well and truly seen to, no doubt, all eyes will turn to us.
|
|
|
|
8 members (Geoff Hannis, Yousri, Neil Porter, carl ray, Huw, daisizhou, mosfet1996, Hollie Owen),
462
guests, and
13
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums25
Topics11,063
Posts73,728
Members10,179
| |
Most Online5,980
Jan 29th, 2020
|
|
|
|
