EBME Forums Forums Management Training Level 5 Diploma in Medical Equipment Technologies

My vote says keep (emphasize, even) the "Anatomy and Physiology" ... where else is a tech going to learn about that? And of course it's relevant!

Stuff like "networking" (both technology and "social"), programming, microprocessors ... and all the rest can be picked up elsewhere; on other (non-medical equipment) courses, for example. And students are going to roll up at Kidderminster already knowing a lot of that stuff (in varying degrees, from zilch to Genius Guy level) anyway.

If anyone out there wishes to become involved with helping in the development in a range of course material for medical engineers, currently we offer levels 3 to 5 with a level 6/7 (Hons degree being developed), then please contact nigel at Avensys. These distance learning programmes with practical based assessment and learning both in the workplace and at our academy are ideally suited to help resolve the shortage within our field.

I will be at the Phillips show Thursday if you would like to discuss.....

Surely Anatomy and Physiology is learned from clinical trainers as and when it is required. If your hospital has specific specialities, then there will be training for staff from the experts in house, if it is a properly run organisation.
In my time I have had excellent in house training as well as on medical equipment courses when required.
It seems to me to be a wasted opportunity giving students a watered down general medical education if they are going to be primarily dealing with equipment. The opportunity to get into the subjects covered in the coming generation of equipment such as Wi-Fi, data systems and embedded processing technology are not easy to learn on the job. Much better to learn them academically.

I have this question asked of me many times, why do we need anatomy and physiology, I'm an engineer. The simple answer is: you're not just an engineer, you're a medical engineer and you need to know how the equipment interacts with the human body. You also deal with clinical staff on a daily basis who quite often don't understand the principles of the equipment in relation to the field of clinical practice. This is generally left to you to explain to them.
I'm sure there are many organisations who have excellent "In-house" training, I know quite a few. But on the other hand there are just as many who don't have the facilities to carry out this training.

The Avensys model of training has been successful over many years and we are always improving and updating our modules. We research and more importantly listen to what you as engineers want in your training packages and qualifications, after all it's your journey in education.

I'm sure if you ask any of the students that have just completed the 2 week course at Kidderminster, it was enlightening and refreshing to gain insight into both the mechanical and clinical aspects involved within our sphere of practice. We have a specialist nurse speak to the students and they always have a hundred questions, as often in the work environment this can simply not be achieved. This session has 100% positive feedback, so I can't argue with that.

As stated in previous posts, I am only too happy to listen to any comments and if you are in a position to help design or put your ideas forward. Please email me via the Avensys website www.avensysmedical.co.uk

Kind regards

Nigel

As someone who correctly calls himself a clinical engineer (which I use the AAMI definition of an engineer who understands the equipment in context) I totally agree with and strongly endorse what Nige is saying - medical terminology is very, very precise and I find most clinicians are much more communicative to we engineers if they have confidence that we understand both their language and A&P concepts. I completed clinician level training on anatomy, physiology, human movement science and biochemistry at university and find that has been as much of a help to me as the engineering training - I often say we work at the machine/body interface and we need to have an understanding of both and how they relate if have ambitions to be any more than electronic bench techs who just repair equipment by following the service manual.I don't endorse one course or training method over another just endorse needed training - My two bobs worth.

Perhaps Nigel or Rob (or even both) will be on here soon to tell us all about T-Levels.

Hopefully their narrative(s) will be a bit clearly than the Baboon Speak contained in the link cited.

Are they just yet another new name for HNC / BTEC / City & Guilds / GNVQ ... or one of any number of technical training schemes (initiatives) that have been tried over the years?