EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues VRCT registration eligibility

Continuing with the theme of stuff like "it's going to happen whether we like it or not" and "you'll get left behind if you don't conform" ... etc., etc. (also known as pathetic defeatism and/or scaremongering) ...

OK, but hasn't this VRCT stuff been dragging on for something like ten years now? So ... has anyone been "left behind" yet?

Meanwhile, some of us are more interested in the practicalities of the job. So ... does anyone have current information on what the educational (training) "requirements" are before any hapless soul shall be considered for his (her) name to be added to the Mighty VRCT?

In short, what routes are available (bearing in mind the various starting points from which techs may enter - or at least, used to enter - the "trade")? Also, have such "requirements" been finalised now ... or are they likely to change in the foreseeable future?

And - rather more importantly - where is such training available?

In passing, I note that the questions posed at my recent posts to this thread remain unanswered.

But has the original post been answered?


Would anyone care to précis the "requirements" here?

There aren't many courses out there aimed at biomeds. But as I mentioned in my post on Modernising Scientific Careers they (MSC) are taking the lead on education & training. We had a student on workplace placement for 10 weeks who was on a Clinical Engineering course at Bradford Uni. We were amazed at the content of the degree, very basic electronics minimal computing. Loads of physiology & ethics. I had to introduce our student to the magic of Ohm's Law even though he had been studying Clinical Engineering for two terms by the time he came to us. He obviously learned more in the 10 weeks with us than six months at uni. The other notable thing to point out is that all of the students on this course came through clearing rather than being their first choice. The course was not oversubscribed either there were only 10 students on it of which two droped out before the end of the first year. I'll post a link to the course details if you want to have a look.

Sounds like they got the "mix" a bit screwed up there, then. What did the physiology side of things amount to, I wonder?

But to me the interesting question there is:- what would their first choice have been?

And ... that's a great, a load of students who "don't really want to be there". Hardly bodes well for the future, does it?

They (and we) would be better off with C&G Electronics Servicing ... plus a bit of "Anatomy and Physiology".

Here's a link to the course. click on the modules tab to see what we have been missing out on

Interesting.

Good Luck to those students.

But why so many "pathways", I wonder? And why those?

What happened to "Anaesthesia", "Ventilation of the Lungs", "Clinical Laboratory" and "Medical Imaging" (including x-ray, CT, MRI and ultrasound - not just the module [whatever that comprises] shown within the Medical Engineering "Pathway")?

And, what's that ... three years to complete a one-year course? The infamous "Arborfield" course was only six-months. But the guys were already up to speed (in theory at least) in Ohm's Law and Maths by then, I grant you.

As I say, a practical course at C&G or ONC level would serve everyone far better as a "foundation" qualification for those who think that Biomed could be for them. Who knows, they might even find they like it, and go on to become useful techs!

As the designer of the Kingston FD in medical technology (medical equipment pathway), this course is based on the arborfield course format/subjects. A Two years distance learning course, with around 150 students passed and present and over a third of each course going onto join a Kingston Hon program for final year. Students ideally should be employed within the industry.

Original concept of the FD was for it to replace HNC/HND, a bit like an OU course in the workplace, but surprise surprise after 5 years the FD is dying out and it's head 'the foundation degree forward' now cut off...

I have yet to come across a better suited course set at the right level than the Arborfield Med and Dent course, a practical based course with a strict entry requirement .

Good input, Rob.

... to which I would add the remark that (presumably) the "Arborfield course" has had the benefit of being refined over the years; in light of experience, we might say. In other words, benefited from more or less continuous "feedback".

But you're saying that the Foundation Degree idea is dying? How come? And what was the thinking behind that "change of plan", I wonder?

"Strict entry requirement". Yes. Some of which came under the heading of "personal characteristics":- such as things like "resourcefulness" and "self-motivation" (IIRC).

Geoff, my soap box is out for a rant....

www.hefce.ac.uk under news and events gives detail of the rise and demise of the FD program's, this combined with removal of HEFCE funding from universities is in part the reason students now bare the brunt of student fees doubling. Degree program's have jumped up in cost to around 9 k per annum for 3 years minimum, dependent on the course. FD has doubled to 6 k per annum for two years and this is just two thirds of a degree program.

So any aspiring Ebme tech wishing to gain a degree (minimum qual level in the future VRCT take note), Better have deep pockets or look for another job.

Q why are the National occupational standards for the UK set at level 3 (ONC in old money), the very same minimum standards that courses in medical engineering should be set at for this type of work being undertaken,. Check out national occupational standards website, search for medical engineer....from these standards courses should be directly mapped.

NOS describe what the individual needs to do, know and understand in order to carry out a particular job, role or function. NOS are statements of performance as agreed by employers and other agreed stakeholders...

I'm sure someone will get around to informing employers in due course....

Thanks for that information, Rob.

I shall leave it to others to wade through this lot.

But here are a couple of the .pdf's (the content of which look pretty much OK to me).

Myself, I suspect that my overall impression remains correct:- that it is all very well that VRCT et al is (or shall be) insisting on "raising the bar", but where are the opportunities for youngsters (or anyone else) to meet those requirements?

I can't imagine there are too many young folk about who are so convinced that they want to become biomeds that they will be willing to make commitments at the level mentioned. Surely young people (even if they knew what a "biomed" was at all) would be better advised to hedge their bets and think in terms (initially at least) of "electronics technician", or similar.

It seems to me that, once again, the young folk of Britain have been sold a pup (in being expected to make up their minds so early, with potentially disastrous financial consequences). At least "in my day" a bloke could pick up a decent technical training (yes, at the taxpayers' expense) in HM Forces.

It all really comes back to the same old question:- where is the so-called* NHS going to find the next wave of technicians, once the rapidly declining stock of Old Sweats have moved on?

I realised many years ago that this country is run by jackasses, so I don't expect any logical response from the so-called "government" to our general need for (indigenous) technical manpower, so I won't be holding my breath on that one.

But it seems to me that for some time (years) now the lawyers who are "in charge" of our country have defaulted to the view that standards (and I mean standards in general there) can be improved solely by the threat of litigation. To which I reply:- [censored]!

* If it was a proper National Health Service, it would operate its own central training organisation, geared to National requirements.

Who writes this rubbish?
To service equipment you need to know about "BS7671/IEE wiring regs". IEC60601 anyone?
And for fault diagnosis you need to know "logic truth tables and Boolean algebra for AND, OR, NAND, NOR, NOT and EXCLUSIVE-OR gates". Hands up anyone who has fault found discrete logic circuits recently.
Robert