EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues APS update

Geoff, you are absolutely spot on.
If a crime has been committed, it is more appropriate to "regulate" an individual through the rule of Law, applied by the Police, and Crown Prosecution Services.

The following legislation adequately covers any risks to patient safety, and specifies a more appropriate penalty than being struck off a register for serious misdeameanours.

The Health & Safety at Work Act defines general duties on employers, employees, contractors, suppliers of goods and substances for use at work, persons in control of work premises, and those who manage and maintain them, and persons in general. The Act enables a broad regime of regulation by government ministers through Statutory Instrument which has, in the years since 1974, generated an extensive system of specific provisions for various industries, disciplines and risks. It established a system of public supervision through aids the creation of the Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive, since merged, and bestows extensive enforcement powers, ultimately backed by criminal sanctions extending to unlimited fines and imprisonment for up to two years. Further, the Act provides a critical interface with the law of the European Union on workplace health and safety.

Duties of employers Section 2 states that "It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his/her employees", and in particular that such a duty extends to:

Provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health;
Arrangements for ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances;
Provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees;
So far as is reasonably practicable as regards any place of work under the employer’s control, the maintenance of it in a condition that is safe and without risks to health and the provision and maintenance of means of access to and egress from it that are safe and without such risks;
Provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work.
Section 3 states the duty of all employers and self-employed persons to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable the safety of persons other than employees, for example, contractors, visitors, the general public and clients.

Employers must also prepare and keep under review a safety policy and to bring it to the attention of his employees (s.2(2)). Trade unions may appoint safety representatives and demand safety committees. The representatives have a right to be consulted on safety issues (ss.2(4), (6) and (7)). Since 1996 employers have had a duty to consult all employees on safety matters.[9][10] No employer may charge an employee for provision of health and safety arrangements (s.9).

Duties of employees Under section 7 all employees have a duty while at work to:

Take reasonable care for the health and safety of him/herself and of other persons who may be affected by his/her acts or omissions at work; and
Co-operate with employers or other persons so far as is necessary to enable them to perform their duties or requirements under the Act.

There are a few Sean, but if someone did a name and shame on here they'd probably end up facing civil proceedings themselves.

As for the health and safety act, a bit of a sledge hammer to crack a nut in the case of biomeds. In most cases it never gets to corporate manslaughter and the company gets a fine. The individual if their unlucky gets fired and then gets a job elsewhere doing the same thing as if nothing had happened.

Chris, that’s as it should be for minor infractions, loss of job, and the possibility of a new start, having learnt a valuable lesson. For serious misdemeanours, I very much doubt that, that they would get a job elsewhere in the same role.
Pre-employment checks always find that out, and having interviewed a few shady characters in my time, it is obvious if someone has something to hide, with regard to knowledge, skills and experience.
The Biomed profession is quite small, and you can bet that if someone leaves employ under a cloud, the grapevine telegraph passes this on fairly accurately.


If it the alleged offence was serious enough, the MHRA would have been involved; such offences would already be common knowledge. I have a problem with anecdotal evidence, in most cases it fails being subjected to scrutiny.
Biomeds deal in facts, if the MHRA does not think there is a problem whereby thousands of patients are being subjected to risk by unregulated professionals, neither do I.

Bravo! Sean, Bravo!

Pre-employment checks can be useless so they haven't got a criminal record, they do have qualifications and their entitled to work here. As for references quite a lot of people have given up even checking them. An excellent reference means either the person got on well with the last manager or that company has just provided the best possible reference to get rid of them. No your really left with how they perform at the interview.

As for the grapevine that's just as reliable, even with the good techs you'll get a report that they've had issues with them or another that the sun shines out their ass. For the later you'll never hear about any issues as people are more willing to forget even the largest faux pas of someone they believe is a good worker.

As for biomeds deal in facts, I'd have to go with Jim on this one, does seem people only try and find evidence that fits with what they believe.

Duties of employers Section 2 states that "It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his/her employees"

In short:- training is the answer (as it always has been), not "politics".
Continued (monitored) education.

Could well be, some manufactures are only offering support and official parts if you've been certified on their products and attend a regular refresher.

That sort of thing has been going on since the Dawns of Biomed, Chris. And (personally) I see nothing wrong with that policy, just as long as we're talking about "high-end", sophisticated kit and not the "nebulizers" and other run-of-the-mill stuff that makes up a high proportion of the typical hospital inventory - and the biomed's workload.

Here's another thought for you:- in the "National" Health Service (you know - government run, well-resourced, properly organised, and taxpayer funded), why not have a Log-Book that stays with the tech throughout his career (a bit like a pilot's log) that details his training courses and such ("good deeds", for example)? Surely all those HR bods could manage to arrange something like that?

Then when (and if it ever happens - and I suggest that it never will) the tech gets punished, or even "struck off", the Log-Book gets "endorsed" (or even taken away), a bit like the "points" on your driving licence*. In fact that's what the Log-Book could be seen as:- the biomed's licence to practise.

Once again I hope, a far more useful idea than simply names on a piece of paper in the VRCT mode.

* That's "driver's license" for some overseas viewers!

I must say, it was a bit of a shock to learn that as a consequence of being on a de facto (as opposed to 'de jure') manadatory register, I am a risk to patients.

It would probably have been helpful if someone had told me this at some point during the previous decade.

A couple of serious points though:

If 'Clinical Technologist' (or whatever the current de rigueur title is) becomes a protected title, what exactly is there to stop an organisation from coming into a hospital and offering the exact same services, but under a different title?
Bear in mind that throughout the UK there are several different names for what is, to all intents and purposes, the same job.

Does the APS intend to demand that employees of private companies are also mandatorily registered and regulated?
I gather that in some hospitals the in-house biomed service is in fact run by a private company and the staff are employees of that company rather than the NHS.
Also, what about cases where an in-house NHS run biomed service has to call in a service engineer from a private company? Whose responsibility will it be to ensure that said engineer is registered?

Also, it's worth mentioning that in Scotland, healthcare is a devolved issue, meaning that any mandatory register would not automatically be valid in Scotland. Does the APS intend to pursue the issue with the Scottish Government? Is it anticipated that agreement will be reached to use one common register, or are separate registers to be set up? If there are separate registers what are the implications of a Scottish-registered going to work in England, or vice versa? Also in that case, what would happen if a Scottish hospital required the services of an outside engineer who was only registered in England?
And if the UK-wide register was the chosen route, how would this be affected should Scotland vote to leave the UK next Autumn?