EBME Forums Forums Free discussion Free discussion Defining 'Competent'

Having the neccessary ability or knowledge to do something successfully. Efficient and capable. (Dictionary)

With the average general Hospital having over 1000 models of medical equipment it is impossible to train on everything. I want to define 'competent' in technician terms for our quality manual.

I was thinking along the lines of grading technicians by their level of knowledge and experience.

i.e. An HNC qualified MTO3 is competent to carry out 1st or 2nd line investigations/repairs on any item of medical equipment, based on their own knowledge. (i.e. No model specific training)
3rd line repairs would need to be referred to the chief Tech or EBME Manager for consideration.

An ONC qualified MTO2 is competent to carry out 1st or 2nd line investigations/repairs on 'low or medium risk' items of medical equipment, based on their own knowledge. (i.e. No model specific training)
High risk equipment or 3rd line repairs would need to be referred to the chief Tech or EBME Manager for consideration.

Any thoughts? Anyone already done this?
_

Why not keep it simple, John? Why mention ONC’s, HNC’s etc. at all? Just ask “can the tech do the job”? It is up to management to assess this, surely.

A competent technician is properly or sufficiently qualified, or otherwise, to carry out the task in question. All grades of technician should be deemed competent to carry out work assigned to them (ie, their line manager must take overall responsibility), or else they shouldn’t be there!
I would have thought that differences in grade should reflect upon the degree of (or lack of) supervision the tech works under.

Personally (as I have probably mentioned before), I wouldn’t worry too much about knowledge and experience etc., but just ask “does the guy have the ability to do the work I need to get done”? I think it’s called “Results-Orientated Management”, or some such thing. Real world, Old Mate.

Isn't this what KSF is supposed to be sorting out?
Who has and who needs the skills and knowledge and by implication training. As this is done on a one to one basis it analyses the person accurately and as an individual.
And for those who are registered as technicians or scientists this will run in parallel with their own personal development plans.
Well this is for NHS staff anyway.
Robert

Re HNC Electronics
I spoke recently to a Mechanically qualified collegue nearing completion of his HNC Electronics. Distincions abound, top of the class etc yet he really feels he has learnt nothing.
First hand evidence of qualifications versus experience i think.

Have to agree with the others John, qualifications should be a means to gaining the position, not then used as a badge of office, grade is relevant as mentioned by Geoff.

What the individual can do should be decided on by their line-manager, it is ultimately their responsibility.

This should be constantly reviewed and documented, as per training record.

I agree with the first line, second line thing.
Again this should be stepped as to what is required, what they can do and to what level.

Surely competence can only be determined with respect to the ability to do a job. This would normally be assessed during initial work done in the department with a grading system run by the technical manager. If a person shows himself to have the necessary skills and ability to do a job then his paper qualification level is of little consequence.

The spirit of what Goeff is saying is dead right. In practice it's not possible to assess the competency of personel on all models and types of device. As John says, there are just too many.
It then comes down to watching a tech work on several items while they are in their training phase and extrapolating from that (assuming to a large extent) that they will show similar skill and enterprise on other models of equipment.
The HNC/ONC bit is for the background engineering knowlege and the proof that the person is able to learn. As elitist as this harping on qualifications may seem to some, it is essential to know that a new starter can talk and be talked to on technical matters and read drawings etc. If they don't have a basic qualification then all of that would need checking.
I infer from Johns mention of varying competencies that he has a large department. In small departments I beleive that everybody has to be fully competent and there is no room for fuse checkers.
In my bays for instance there are 4 equally competent staff.
If we instead had 2 expensive high competency techs and 2 cheaper moderately competent techs and a clever one got sick while the other is on holiday or tied down on another job then the hospital would be stuck with relying on two moderately competent people if you get my drift.
Consequently in a small department with little slack everyone in my opinion should be fully capable.
Unfortunately if you do want to grade staff by competency then the only fair way will be to run competency tests and draw up task checklists of what they have been observed to do correctly. Quite a task and probably open to problems from the Human Resources point of view!

Marc

Geoff, valid point.

Maybe i am over complicating things. A simple statement in the quality manual that says: No task should be assigned unless the person assigning considers the person carrying out the task to be competent.'All personnel carrying out individual tasks must be responsible for ensuring they are competent to carry out that task'.

Yes, Rick. That’s exactly what competence is. “The ability to do the job”.

John, may I suggest revising the manual in regard to that second sentence. As Dave, Rick and Marcel seem to be agreeing, it is the manager’s job to take responsibility “for ensuring they are competent to carry out that task” (that’s why they pay you all that money, John).

Harping back to my early years in Electro-Med, we were trained from the beginning to work alone, in isolation and sometimes in remote or “difficult” locations. I still reckon that’s the best way, and that’s what Geoff Hannis’ Biomed Boot-Camp is all about!

John,
As part of Medical Device Training we use competent and confident. The person must be happy to do the task as well as having been shown how to do it.
They might have passed a few tests to show that had the knowledge just after the training and have been passed competent but are they happy they have retained sufficient knowledge? This does not protect against know-it-alls but it helps.
Robert