EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues VRCT - A death knell

Dear All

I know I have asked previously about the VRCT, but here's another.
Has anybody read a document "Enabling Excellence - Autonomy and Accountability for Healthcare Workers, Social Workers and Social Care Workers".
This document was presented to parliment by the secretary of state for health in February 2011.

People should take a look at page 9, point 1.15, which states:

"For Groups of staff that are currently unregulated, the first response will be not to impose national compulsory regulation, but to enable employers to take local repsonsibilty for the quality of the staff that they employ and to give a stronger voice to individual workers to speak up when they have concerns."

I thank-you

Next......

Thank you, Alan.

After thirteen years of unadulterated BS from the previous regime, it's encouraging (is it not?) to see those in charge getting a grip!

So that's it, then. As I said earlier, finito!

How do you claim the registration fee back? (Not that it applies to myself)

Be interesting to see what happens to job descriptions with the immortal phrase "membership of the VRCT is essential"...

For the past 8 years it has been a prerequisite to be a member of the VRCT if you want a job in the health board Im employed in. Having browsed through the document concerned it looks like this really is the death knell of the VRCT. Can anyone from the VRCT put some feedback on here regarding this latest news. I really do feel as if Ive thrown my money down the drain for the past 8 years.

What about the other sdections that mention agreeing with Voluntary registers.
Prehaps someone should read the document.

Actually its not finito by any means. The concept of regulation is a long and difficult one, where the primary driver is one of how much harm can be posed to the patient with respect to the role the individual has to perform.

This is in real terms a measure of the skill set. Those individuals using complex skills in enviroments that directly impact on patient care and pathways etc need some degree of competance bar / level / benchmark. Those working in equally important but lessor challenging roles that may impinge on patient care but not directly compromise it may also need some kind of bench mark agreed.

It is - I hope you will agree - not unrealistic to expect these benchmarks to be at differing levels, reflecting the degree of autonomy the role holder has.

It was in this sprit the the department of health conducted its recent review of the concepts of regulation / registration, to which the inital post in this strand refers.

The concept being that there are staff in bands 1, 2, 3, 4 type roles that by and large will be working with their work output checked in some format by a second individual . There is therefore a fair degree of certainity that any error made is likely to be picked up before it becomes serious. This is what is meant by internal employer asscessed competance and development.

The more senior roles in which staff are operating with very specfic skills and abilities, and more than likely without their work being routinely checked by some wise old gray beard, could need some form / degree of external benchmark. If you are wondering why just ask your self this question - does my trust really understand the skills and abilities that I bring to my role? Posting on this site to numerious mention clearly indicate not. Therefore in the real world how is the employer to be assured that you are actualy competant to practice? The answer is actually quite simple independant external asscessment.

The two principles mentioned above are the key elements of the modernising scientfic careers package, where employer led standards are set for low grade staff working mostly with protocol driven instruction and professional regulation being place for the higher banded posts.

I am sure that most reading this will think this is all a load of S H one T, but each and everyone one of you is a professional and should therefore welcome each and evry attempt to drive up standards and abilities I for one would welcome a system that ensures that those trained and operating in one part of the UK have the same levels of competancy and ability as those trained in other areas of the UK.

Not a load of [censored] at all, Paul (and thanks for your input).

But (and with reference to your closing paragraph) ... when is all this good stuff going to actually happen (independent assessment by external means, and all the rest)?

This whole issue has just been a Talking Shop for (insert how many) years now.

Meanwhile, life is passing us all by!

My vote says this:- abandon the VRCT, carry out a brief (but proper) consultation with "the troops", then re-launch the thing in a more up-to-date way, with clear aims, properly communicated ... and then just get on with it (and hurry up, too)!

The bottom line is this:- you can't just issue a diktat ... you have to carry the troops with you!

On the MPE mailbase "Paul" (Not Robbins) posted this in a discussion thread on Medical Herbalists being registered by the HPC

I think there are a lot of people frustrated by the time it has taken for the registration process to come in to force. I think this is leading to more and more discredit for the VRCT.
RoJo

Rojo, I think that has been the biggest problem for the VRCT

Whilst I am not for or against the VRCT, I am a believer in registration in a form.

Good Day