EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues VRCT Website Updates

Don't forget the Chaplains.

But just a brief comment, Bill (if I may):- I think the point may be that it's the kit* that has contact with the patients, rather than the techs per se.

* That has just been worked on, serviced or repaired, for instance.

I think we might be straying off topic a bit, heading towards the same old circular argument, "what have the Rom.. sorry VRCT ever done for us?"
I think we covered the topic of who can cause harm to patients many years ago. The outcome was that "everyone" and "anything" entering a healthcare environment has the potential to cause harm to patients. So as I said where do we draw the line?

There shouldn't be any lines. Everyone should be accountable for their actions (and indeed already are, in both law and under the terms of their employment contract).

Everyone should be also be supervised (in theory at least) by those on the tier above ... and the "buck" stops at the very top. There also should always be a disciplinary process in place at every level. Anything else is simply bad management (which is, I suspect, the real nub of the issue here).

OK ... everyone knows about doctors being "struck off", and the theory that a doctor is barred from practicising if not listed on the GMC register. But doctors are often in private practise, and they also have defined powers in law (Death Certificates, and the like). They also have onerous responsibilities involving intrusive, inter-personal and confidential patient care.

Meanwhile, the biomed tech is in a completely different position, and I still fail to see the purpose of having names added to a list. Apart from, that is, simple neatness of administration. "Bedside manner" for biomeds need only amount to normal politeness, simple decency, and basic compassion. We should save anything more intrusive for our pumps, x-ray sets, analyzers and monitors.

In other words, if a tech falls short for reasons real or imagined, what difference does being on the Register (or not) make?

Bill, it's not a question of "what has the VRCT ever done for us"? ... but rather "what is the point of the VRCT at all"?

Answers on a postcard please

Actually, postcards are probably a bit old hat now as well (apt?).

I suppose they could always Tweet ... just as long as it can be explained in 140 characters or less!

Can't see there being too many "followers" though.

When the V is dropped and it becomes the Compulsory RCT, then a person who has committed a malpractice can be struck off and not be a danger to patients again.
This is just the same as all the other registered professions.

This also explains the "Why have registration?" question - to protect patients from those who might cause them harm through poor practice or another misdemeanour.
Robert

I hesitate to prolong the "debate" (but it's bit like drawing hen's teeth) ... but just what sort of "harm", "dangers", "malpractices" or "misdemeanours" are we talking about here?

And ... which ones would not be equally (or perhaps, more properly) dealt with by other (and most likely, more suitable) means. By disciplinary action, or the Criminal Justice System, for example.

Can we have a couple of actual examples, please (just for a change)?

Are we talking about errors made when servicing equipment ... or what?

What is the point of having 'rules' after an incident happens. The V or CRCT (call it what you like), will just be doing their best to ensure patients are protected. No point in shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted eh? No doubt if there is an incident you will be the first on here making comments about the regulators. Probably come out with your old chestnut 'lessons shall be learned....blah, blah blah'.

Who (or what) are you responding to there, Mike?


Er ... how, exactly?

And, whilst we're at it, what is an "incident" (in this context)? Not bothering to respond to a Request for Service? Poor servicing work? A couple of screws missing ... or what?

Geoff, the point I am trying to address is this;

We have been over the same old ground about the VRCT time and time again. We all know that it will become compulsory in the next few years. Whether that is a good or a bad thing, we all need to realise that. Therefore, if it's going to happen, the VRCT may as well get all it's ground rules in place at the outset. We can all agree on that surely. That hopefully explains my comment about horses and stable doors etc.

Incidents that may be of future concern I would suspect relate to one ones of professional incompetence I.e. not being up to the job and leaving equipment in a dangerous condition thereby endangering patients.

Think of a similar scenario in the Nursing sphere (endangering patients) and then equate it to ours. It has happened. If you become professionally incompetent you won' t be allowed near medical kit. You wouldn't expect a Nurse who is now deemed to be incompetent to be allowed near patients would you. As I see it, it's another layer of professional accountability.

I'm obviously talking about serious issues here, not minor mistakes (as long as patient safety is not compromised of course).