EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues The Alliance for Patient Safety

Then again they probably believe everything thing is bureaucratic. I'm sure there's probably a Tory out there somewhere who thinks Mid staffs is probably an excellent hospital for the poor! They seem to go for the line of let the Market decide, if there are people who are a risk to patent safety, people who can afford it will not use their services.

Lets put a slightly different spin on this.

Would you want to fly on a plane that had been serviced by unregulated engineers?

I'm guessing the answer would be no, so why do you think that the rest of the public (most not knowing what we do!) would want to be on equipment in hospitals that, is able to be adjusted by unregulated professionals?

Of course not but a ECG machine is not likely to fall from 40,000 feet and kill hundreds of people!

As others have said, just having statutory regulation and registration will not stop any incidents from occurring. In fact the VRCT seems to be trying to include many individuals, who clearly have no direct patient contact or influence, into the mix to bolster numbers.

Those installing, repairing and maintaining medical equipment are best served by proper management and management systems than by any compulsory registration or licensing of engineers. This will simply add costs and bureaucracy that will not improve safety. Even over qualification can have a negative impact as many will become bored and complacent of not taxed to their abilities.

I would like Jim to provide some real world examples from the thousands of incidents allegedly occurring due to the lack of proper regulation. Then we could really locate the problems and not just second guess them, if they exist at all.

@Scott: I think I would be more worried about whether the pilot was drunk, or wondering if any of my fellow passengers had a "bomb" hidden in their shoe, or stuffed down their under-pants (or wherever). Not to mention the mental (and/or drunken) state of the rest of the passengers - especially if they were Brits.

Meanwhile, who are we going to hear about next? How about the CORGI Registered boiler installer ... or the MCEA Approved caravan engineer?

@Mike: yes - identify the actual problem(s), if any. Then comprehensively address them, and lay them to rest. That's what Engineers do (or, rather, are supposed to do).

Hello Scott
Joe Public does not care if you are regulated or not, and after the tragedy of Mid Staffordshire, where "regulated" healthcare professionals failed in their duty of care, would not hold much store by another bureaucratic tick box exercise, who some folk in the trade wrongly, in my opinion, believe is the panacea to a lack of professional recognition from their healthcare colleagues. Lack of confidence or poor morale is usually caused by poor management, or poor leadership on a local level.

As an aside, I have flown on a variety of aircraft which have been serviced by unregulated engineers many times in my career, without worry, because I had confidence in the system of trade management, the accountability and conscientiousness of the guys servicing the aircraft.

The answer lies in robust control mechanisms on a local level where staff have the training, skills, support and management required to perform their role confidently and correctly.
As we all know competence, is of more value and held in higher esteem, by the Biomed Trade, than a bit of paper which in reality, confers nothing of substance.

Hello Mike (& Geoff)
Only saw you comments after replying to Scott.
I am in agreement with your expressed views.
The answer to improved patient safety is obvious, good trade leadership and management.

The statements made so far on behalf of the VRCT in their joint venture with the Alliance for Patient Safety, and the failure to provide factual evidence for the assertions made, does not fill me with confidence as to the ability to provide this leadership on a national level.

If I may offer a comment here: I came into Biomedical Engineering in 2010 after working for over 30 years in Marine Electronics. The grandfather arrangements that existed with VRCT precluded my joining the register and I am not inclined to undergo the current available route. I have a perfectly good engineering degree thank you very much and I fail to see what benefits the VRCT suggested route would have for me or my employers.

I should point out that the equipment manufacturers are perfectly happy with my performance at their training courses and with my subsequent work at the front-line.

As a non-VRCT member of staff I frequently have to correct the cock-ups committed by people who are VRCT-acredited.

I contend that there are several ways of skinning a cat and I also maintain that I am not 'clinical'. I do not touch patients, alive or dead. However I do come into contact with equipment of all descriptions and that is where my background comes in very handy.

I note that on another thread Mr Methven stated that aeronautical engineers would not be suitable for VRCT. Why not? The rigour demanded in aviation is just as great as in medical equipment. Similarly, speaking about my own case, being responsible for the well-being of fishing boats, cargo ships, passenger ferries and even on occasion Royal Navy ships provides an excellent framework for working in the hospital environment.

I know that several biomeds working for the large medical equipment manufacturers are not aligned to the VRCT. Are hospitals going to ban equipment manufacturer employees from their premises? I think not.

In short, VRCT appears to be badly thought-out and this Alliance for Patient Safety has even less credibility.

The VRCT is aimed at Clinical technologist (if you want to be called that), registration does not have to come from IPEM there are a range to professional bodies that would quite happily take you on.

Yes, the issue is training, but at local level? set by who? and what one department thinks would be relevant, another would not.
The professional bodies have set this standard and all you have to do it prove you meet them.

I am in the VRCT, and would like to apply to IPEM, but I do feel like I will have a battle to get I.Eng. Bring it on! and if they say I do not meet their level, I will question it with the EC.

The VRCT, in my opinion closed too early, and does not have other options (pathways), which it should.

Yes, Sean good management, would be fantastic, but we all know there are some bad managers out there, and if your in one of the departments with one, is he going to set your training?

As for Drunk regulated pilots, I'm sure they will not be working for long if caught!

Some folk struggling to understand what this "debate" is all about may not be aware of the age-old battle (turf wars) - in British hospitals, at least - between "biomed" and "medical physics" (and, usually to a lesser extent, "Estates").

In other places I have worked (overseas), the Health Physicists just got on with their own work (radiation physics, and the like) and left us biomeds to get on with ours.

@Rallium: yes, one of the strengths of the "biomed community" has always been (well, back in my day, at least) that almost every biomed you came across was "ex" something else. And (touching once again on Sean's theme of Leadership) one of the joys of "team building" was discovering, and then making best use of, the latent talent within whatever bunch (group) of guys you were lumbered (do I mean blessed?) with.

Over the years I have worked with some real dumb [censored], but also quite a few Genius Guys as well. But all had their place; it was just a matter of finding what they were good at - where their contribution could be made - setting them to work, and then keeping a close eye on them. In other words, managing them properly. Quickly scanning my memory banks now, I only recall ever actively getting rid of one guy (who, in my opinion, was not only a "no-hoper", but - worse still in my mind - a complete charlatan). Others were simply "eased out" (let go) as opportunities for a cull arose.

Paper qualifications have generally offered insufficient clues to a bloke's usefulness, in my experience. In fact I recall one case where the most highly qualified guy on the team (according to the certificates he produced - and certainly well above anything I could claim for myself) was in fact the most useless [censored] of the whole lot. And I never did get rid of him.

Like you it seems, I'm not convinced that the VRCT idea makes any inroads (or improvements) into Real World stuff like that.

Another 'Turf' war looms, only this time it is over fancy titles. To this day I cannot understand the term 'clinical technologist' if this was patient related yes, equipment NO.