EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues The Alliance for Patient Safety

Yes Geoff, the real issue is leadership, or rather lack of it. That could be said of a number of organisations, not just the NHS. Accountability for failure to deliver from Senior Leadership should result in a vote of no confidence, whatever the organisation, both in public and private office.
Just another thought, like....

Sean Fearon
[Address Removed]

Email: seanfearon@aol.com

Thursday 11 April 2013

Dear Steve Rotheram,
I am writing to you as your constituent and an NHS Biomedical Engineer
to ask you to attend the launch of the Alliance for Patient Safety,
which is being held on 24th April 2013 at 3:30pm in Committee Room 3 in
Parliament and is being sponsored by Baroness Masham of Ilton, Rosie
Cooper MP, and John Pugh MP.
The Alliance for Patient Safety is being formed by a self interested
group of health professionals who are lobbying that the current
Government approach to professional regulation in the healthcare sector
is inadequate (which I strongly dispute). This group insists that there
needs to be an evidence based approach to professional regulation that
reflects the different nature of various roles in the health service.
The first Alliance meeting will take the form of a roundtable
discussion and will provide Parliamentarians and other participants
with an opportunity to understand more about the proposed regulation of
the healthcare workforce and the assertion that voluntary registration
to ensure patient safety is inadequate. I can find no instance in which
the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare Regulating Authority) has determined
that patient safety has been compromised by unregulated Biomedical
Engineers, and I feel that the existing regulatory safeguards in place,
namely Devices 2000 and DB2006(05) are robust and adequate.
I very much hope you will show your concerns about the use of
undocumented and unfounded risks to patient safety being used by this
group to gain leverage for professional regulation.
I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Yours sincerely,

Sean Fearon

(Signed with an electronic signature in accordance with subsection 7(3)
of the Electronic Communications Act 2000.)

BBC News Page 11 April 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22097929

Most healthcare assistants in the UK want to see tougher regulation of the profession, a survey suggests.

A British Journal of Healthcare Assistants poll of 385 staff found 93% backed compulsory registration - with many prepared to pay for it.

It would mean healthcare assistants would have to be on a formal register to work, just as nurses have to be.

The move was recommended in England by the Stafford Hospital inquiry, but rejected by ministers last month.

They argued that registering the thousands of healthcare assistants working in the NHS and private sector to do basic tasks such as feeding and washing patients would be too burdensome bureaucratically to introduce for the 1m staff working across the public and private sectors.

Ministers also said it would be unfair to ask lowly paid staff to pay annual fees to support the system.

Instead they proposed a code of conduct and minimum training standards, similar to the scheme that has already been introduced in Scotland.

'Strength of feeling'

But this online poll of readers suggests the concern about finances was not justified.

A total of 67% of healthcare assistants drawn from hospitals, the community and care homes said they would be willing to pay an annual fee for registration.

The survey also showed healthcare assistants were concerned about staff shortages and the focus on targets.

Journal editor Peter Bradley said: "While the government refuses to honour one of the main inquiry proposals, support workers emphatically want regulation and are prepared to put their money where their mouth is."

Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, which represents healthcare assistants, said: "It is clear that healthcare assistants themselves take delivering safe care to patients very seriously."

Gail Adams, of Unison, said the "strength of feeling" on the issue was clear.

"Regulation would also mean that every healthcare assistant would get a minimum level of training," she added.

But a Department of Health spokeswoman said: "Setting up a register would be a bureaucratic tick-box exercise.

"We are tackling this issue at its root, focusing on making sure healthcare support workers have the right training, values, support and leadership to provide the high-quality care that patients deserve."

I think the outcome received by Healthcare Assistants from the Government may be the likely outcome of the exercise proposed by the Alliance for Patient Safety.......

I know of two times that patient safety has been put at risk from trained 'engineers', in the same hospital.
Just because it was not reported is not evidence that it is not happening.

I also know of companies employing 'engineers' with no electronics qualifications, paying minimum wage and letting them loose on medical equipment.
You have your pay gateways in the NHS is this not a way of proving competence?

Scott.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but:- "put at risk" - in what way, exactly?

It can't have been that serious if it wasn't reported.

Patients are at risk simply by virtue of submitting themselves to the care (hopefully) of the hospital in the first place. That's (supposedly) why there are so many Managers looking out for their best interests (again, we hope).

And "letting them loose" etc. Doing what, exactly? Electrical safety tests?

And "paying minimum wage"? Who? I've certainly never come across (or heard of) that one before. Are we to assume you're talking about one of your competitors?

It's no good tossing vague statements like that about, Scott. After all we get enough of that sort of thing from "others" who have posted under this thread.

Good points Scott,
But if its not reported it cant be used as statistical evidence. Hearsay or anecdotal stories don’t carry much weight.

Statutory regulation would not prevent "fly-by-night" companies servicing or maintaining medical equipment. I presume that you don’t mean OEM's?
But, competent EBME leadership or Biomedical Management would check into the allocation of contracts to third party contractors, and check service engineer qualifications, and the quality of their work.

NHS Pay gateways have an element of competence which must be attained detailing theoretical knowledge and practical skills, (more than adequate to regulate who services or maintains classes of medical equipment).

Absolutely right, Sir!

As I may have said (a hundred times or so) before:- it's Management's job to Manage.

So if any Biomed Managers find that they have "risen to the level of their own incompetence" ... then I would (gently) suggest that they step aside, and make way for others more willing and able to actively "manage"!

Incompetent NHS managers stepping aside is as likely as incompetent government ministers stepping aside; ie not bl**dy likely.

Let's think of what happened in Mid Stafford before making comments about unreported incidents not being significant or worth considering.

Lee

Hello Lee
Having taken the time to read the Francis report, I think you would not find that any criticism is levied towards the management of medical equipment by Biomeds, or that Biomeds had posed a serious risk to patient safety.
Many of the "Clinical" (read Doctors / Nurses) failures at Mid Staffs had been reported but not acted upon by Clinical (Doctors /Nurses )Management. The term "clinical" should not be confused with Biomed (under any circumstances).

So I fail to see the relevance of your comment about unreported incidents not being significant or worth considering, in relation to the statutory regulation of Clinical Technologists.

Would you care to comment further?

@Lee: in general, I agree with your sentiments, Mate.

But no doubt all the clinical staff at Mid Staffs are (and were) on some Register or other ... so where does that leave us?

Anything that went on there only reinforces what I was saying earlier:- that the odd missed PM, loose case screw, badly adjusted occlusion limit (or whatever else it is the Regulation Merchants have in mind) pales into insignificance when set against real risks to patients.