EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues APS update

A few weeks ago Jim Methven the Registrar of the VRCT informed us that there would be a meeting of the Alliance for Patient Safety outside the Houses of Parliament on Wednesday 24 April to lobby MP's.

Does anyone know how this gathering went. It is now 26th April and I have seen nothing on the news. I have searched the BBC website and unfortunately can't find anything there either. Hope it didn't just fizzle out.

Jim - Any updates for us?

Mike

The day went well. I plan to post a short report on the VRCT website by the end of the week. I will let you know when that happens.

Jim

Mike

The report is now on the VRCT website.

Jim

Has there been a change of heart with regard to making emotive assertions which cannot be quantified, as in the second quoted previously issued statement? One would hope that the lobbying firm whose services are being retained are providing good advice with regard to the release of statements into the public domain.

Remember the old saying:- "always follow the money".

In other words, who is paying for all this "lobbying" (not to mention launches - or should that be lunches)?

Meanwhile, I'm still wondering what all those "serious gaps in patient safety" actually are? Again I enquire:- can we have a few examples? In our biomedical engineering terms, that is.

Thanks for the update Jim. Nice to see the VRCT doing something in Parliament for me, (well my job anyway).

Bit disappointed though to see only 5 Parliamentarians attended the launch - although I see there was representation from another 2 offices. Never mind, at least it is Democracy in action eh!

Good luck with the campaign. I shall keep my eyes and ears peeled for more news.

The lobbying firm is being paid by the Registration Council for Clinical Physiologists. On the day I had lunch at St Thomas' Hospital and it cost me £3.60 for a cheese sandwich!


The gaps are to do with the fact that there are no proper statutory processes which can be used to regulate the professions involved. Thus a rogue or unfit engineering technologist can simply move from one job to another without any legal process which prohibits them from working in medical engineering.

This is not about a list of incidents that have occured. This is about ensuring that all medical engineers can provide external assurances to employers that they are properly educated and competent in their chosen domain. And, if their practice or their conduct falls below the code of conduct for their profession then they can then have their fitness to practice assessed and, if necessary, be retrained, suspended or prevented from working in the profession again.

Our fundamental argument is that voluntary registration is insufficient to achieve these aims and that bodies such as the VRCT need to be replaced by, or integrated into, a statutory body such as the HCPC.

Jim

Are you saying that the current NHS, or private sector recruitment and selection processes, along with pre-employment checks and reference checks are not robust enough to stop those who cannot perform their duties in a safe and competent manner?

Your concerns are already addressed by robust safeguards already in place. If someone was found guilty of a serious workplace misdemeanour which placed patient safety at risk, they would be retrained in-house. If the misdemeanour was such that it warranted dismissal, I find it hard to believe that you think potential future employers of such an individual, be it public or private sector, would not be able to find this out, during the selection and pre-employment checks, and choose not to employ.

I am not in a position to comment on the recruitment processes of multiple organisations, however, if what you say is true why bother to regulate any of the professions at all: doctors; nurses... ...biomedical scientists; radiographers. What is so special about our profession that we need an exemption from all of this?

It cannot be coherently argued that the end point of what medical engineering technologists do does not revolve around the safety of the patient. So what is the argument?

I know individuals who are absolutely not up to the job, have no technical confidence or sense of urgency and no regard for patient safety.
yet still command a healthy salary of >30K
My guess is some people just convince themselves they do a good job when in fact they dont. I wonder if like the ones i know of, they too are members of a voluntary register?
Incidents of harm caused by Biomeds? I have not yet come across one directly attributable to a Technician and would highlight that even so there is a last line of defence to prevent such occurences - the good old pre use check carried out by a competent regulated user.