EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues VRCT Website Updates

No Barney, it clearly is not.

There is no entry at technician level, for people with an HNC/HND. Most Band 4/5 in NHS (the people who service and repair medical equipment, in fact "on the tools") are ineligible to join.
Some higher banded experienced Biomed's, have also been denied membership because their degree is not accredited by the VRCT. (You really could not make this up if you tried).

If you are a Biomed, should you join an organisation, the VRCT, which educationally and academically has set boundaries which does not represent your trade, does not recognise trade relevent qualifications, and blocks entry to new starters?

If you aspire to work in Medical Physics, Renal, Nuclear Medicine or Rehabilitation, or have a yearning to be considered "clinical" then it might be for you, in my opinion for those cases, the VRCT is entirely appropriate, and should exist to represent those professions.

I have no such "clinically inspired" ambitions, and consider that if you are a Biomed, in the generally accepted definition of the term, the VRCT is not a relevant representative body, and though they purport to embrace the career aspirations of Biomeds, they fail when subject to any scrutiny from those who are "in the job".

Been reading this post with interest.

Just had a quick look on the net regarding professional groups and I think it is time there was one set up for 'biomeds'.

http://www.bnms.org.uk/
http://www.artery.org.uk/site/2010/home
http://www.criticalcaretech.org.uk/

On the last one, the contact for the website was looking for anyone in the society who was on the 'VRC register'. Did they mean VRCT ??

@Barney: yes. Good Man!

@Sean: OK, you've made your case well enough (and the "Fresh Audience" [the silent ones] have had a good chance to say their piece) ... so what's the Plan?

And (perhaps lastly), for those still thinking about banging on about names on a piece of paper in any way "protecting patients" ... I offer just two words:-

Mid Staffs

"By Biomeds, for Biomeds"

(That makes two, we could start a Manchester branch of the rebel alliance).

An idea that has been expressed on this site by Geoff, on more than one occasion. In theory great, but in practice requires the involvement and co-operation of a significant number of like minded individuals.

If responses to date are indicative, we are in the minority! Welcome anyway, to those who would seek solutions outside the box, never stop querying that the goals that are in front of us, are relevent and achievable. And also, that our actions are proportional and timely.

Are we in the right thread here?

Declaration
I have no live plans, or machiavellian ambitions in my possession, Geoff!

I consider my role to voice concern and provoke debate, based on my views and experience, nothing more, nothing less. The proof of the pudding, so to speak will be in the VRCT response (or lack of it).

Ultimately, you can only be responsible for your own actions, I have not renewed VRCT membership for the reasons stated. Takes guts sometimes, to decide not to follow the herd, especially when there is no readily available alternative.

A solution to this problem, (if required) will emerge from a groundswell of opinion, if enough people feel it appropriate!

Not sure on that one, one thing I've noticed is like estates departments there are some cross overs in roles, some things that medical physics departments and renal techs would do in one Trust gets done by biomeds in another. How can you have someone registered in one trust while not in another? I do get a feeling that the clinical title came about because no one knew what to call a bunch of was know as MTO's.

Chris, the confusion and lack of understanding, or clarity regarding role-crossover between historical estate and clinical support functions is not made any clearer by the paths or roles envisaged by the VRCT (check out the current eligibility criterion).

Under the closed grandparenting arrangements, you will find some strange bedfellows under the title of VRCT member. A mixture of career paths, qualifications and experience.

Even more confusing is the limited routes available to people currently in the role, who may wish to consider joining the VRCT, but who will now find their entry blocked.

A clear example of failing to understand aspects of the roles undertaken by Biomeds, by the VRCT.

1) Declaration. Yes, I hear you.

2) VRCT response ... how long do we wait?

3) Following the herd is for the, er, sheep? (flock?)

4) Problem ... has anyone yet defined what it is?

5) I doubt there will be any "groundswell" ... but the solution (as it so often is) is Leadership!

Reference your item 4, the problem definition has been done to death, the solution needs to be defined though (by the VRCT).

As for item 5, I agree about groundswell (or lack of it) plenty of people interested in this topic judging by the number of views, but not many bothering to either place on record via this forum their support of the VRCT, or object to unreasonable criticism levied by ingrates like myself.

Either Biomed people are happy with the status quo, (show some support then), or remain apathetic over the lack of management displayed by the VRCT regarding common concerns.
Some people will be uncomfortable voicing their views on this forum, even when cloaked by anonymity.


Thats the problem with the silent majority, (no one listens).