EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues VRCT - Who's Re-Newed?

OK, Bill ...

... just to let you know that the Domain Name www.clinicaltechnologist.co.uk is still available.

Do you fancy chipping in?

Just looked at the list of training centres / NHS hospitals.
Us uneducated lot in Liverpool don't appear to have any training centres near us.

A rough head count of departments in my area gives a number of engineers working on medical equipment ( notice the devious way I avoided using bul****t job titles there) of about 80.

Not an insignificant number, covering very large NHS Trusts at highly skilled levels.

These "departments" do communicate with each other so the question is "Why is there no recognised training centre" in this area?"

I'm sure the answer will come back along the lines of " ..well those areas were prepared to do something about it ..."

Surely IPEM/VRCT/IET should be the ones doing something about it NOW

What has been the difference in those areas having training centres when other major areas have no access to further/continued professional development

Surely that is a question best addressed to the Boards of the Trusts involved, and/or the National Health Service as a whole?

I doubt very much that the VRCT will ever be in a position to operate (or even sponsor) training establishments. Undertakings such as that require serious funding, I would have thought.

Perhaps EBME managers need to be a bit more forceful about gaining funding for training, and then pool resources with Trusts nearby as required.

These are questions, I believe, that need answering.

We are talking here of eventually having a "closed" occupation.
This is patently evident from the items already discussed on this topic.

Surely demographics shouldn't come into it at this point.

I would have thought a driving factor of the "herberts" associated with this would have been to have a nationwide structure, delivering equal opportunities for a a job/role that is seen as having importance.

Board of Trusts would not give a sh** at this time as to a "future" requirement for a very small range of "specialists"

The list of training centres seem to me to be either Clinical Engineering or Medical Physics centred, not exclusively.

These departments are headed up by people who may have more "clout" in their organisation, be a large department already and also get involved in training now.

If this is going to gain momentum and benefit what we do now, in the future, then steps have to be taken to ensure that this process is Fair, Deliverable, Resourced, Open and Accessible.

I've said before and I'll say it again, the people who want this to come off need to get out their and empower the people doing this work now!!

But they will if you expect to have recognised training available on your doorstep.

Falfield is in Gloucestershire (GL12 8DA).

The People are already empowered (or rather, could be) if they really wanted it.

1) How many techs? How much (money) would we need to collect from each tech in order to set up a training structure of our own?

2) How about a possibility of a travelling training programme (that is, Trusts lay on the facilities and accommodation, our trainers come to you)?

3) There used to be excellent factilities at Capital Medical in Kidderminster? What became of all that? The set-up was in place. Why didn't we club together and buy it?

4) Training courses need to be structured to meet both local and present-day needs in general. They also need to be recognised by appropriate certifying bodies. If courses are designed by people who know what they are doing, then that shouldn't present too much of a problem.

5) Better yet, do it in partnership with an existing set-up (eg, Eastwood Park). That way, things stay current, and all the boxes get ticked!

6) Where is the leadership for (on) issues like these?

7) Why don't we thresh out the basic training requirements right here? But in a fresh thread, please.

8) When are we going to start (will it ever happen)?

Sorry, what was that you were saying?

I was referring to the thread in its earlier form.

As you can see, it's morphed a bit since then.

That is, it "progressed" from talking about the Register, and who has forked out fees yet again, towards training requirements for (supposedly) new entrants into the "trade", and continuity training for those already in it!

Meanwhile, do you have anything to add to the post I've just made?

Has any one from the VRCT come on to this forum to defend/explain their position as to why this is necessary and what are their future plans regarding representation, training etc. There are many people defending the register and just as many who see no point in the register, but where are the people who control the register?

If you look back through the annals of the (many) previous threads on this issue, Neil, you will find that certain well-known personalities behind the VRCT idea have indeed come on here, and put their case (in the main) most eloquently.

See also the VRCT website. Or, if you prefer, the IPEM website.

Those who subscribe to the MPE mailbase will have noticed a lot of activity about the HPC registering Herbalists - some quite amusing. There were also several pointed comments about the continued lack of registration of technologists.
RoJo