Dear EBME

I am happy to announce that today the Voluntary Register of Clinical Technologists has launched its own dedicated website. It can be found at: The VRCT Website

The site includes a searchable on-line register which provides brief details of all current VRCT registrants. It also includes a printable application form, application guidelines, scope of practice information, the VRCT code of conduct and the VRCT Clinical Technology degree prospectus. There is also an FAQ section, current regulation information, plus details of the VRCT assessors and links to all of the constituent professional bodies.

We would be grateful for any comments or suggestions that you may have.

Best Wishes

Jim Methven
VRCT Registrar

Dear Jim,

Interesting comment on website homepage - "Until this time the VRCT will be the sole regulator of the profession."

How can you regulate a profession when the register is voluntary? Surely you are only regulating those in the profession who have joined?

Welcome your comments.

I know this is a bit sad, but I wonder how registration numbers are allocated when someone who registers 2 or 3 years later than someone else can have a lower number.

I've been waiting for Ed Bennett to say a lower number could be arranged at a price.

"Only joking!"

Lee

Whether the VRCT is voluntary or not, no other organisation has indicated that it wishes to take forward the case for regulating the Clinical Technologist profession. Furthermore, until the HPC takes over, we have been charged to do so by the Department of Health (see Regulation Update on VRCT Website). Thus we are effectively the sole regulator.

Additionally, we are not only regulating those who have joined the VRCT but we are also leading the profession (in conjunction with the professional bodies) through the setting of standards of education, training, competency, conduct and practice.

Jim

This is quite simple, until 2006 we did not give registrants a number. We made a decision to do so, and used the register as it stood, in alphabetical order, to number each registrant! Thus Mrs Abc became Number 1 and Mr Zxy became No 2999. Even if Mr Zxy had been the first registrant to join the VRCT he didn't become Number 1. (He wasn't - I was and I am nowhere near Number 1!)

Numbers are now allocated chronologically!

Jim

It's a nice, professional looking site, Jim. And not before time.


This could be because, in the opinion of many (myself included), there is no such thing as a "Clinical Technologist profession". Does your site define "Clinical Technologist"? Yes, here it is ...


"Healthcare Scientist"? That doesn't sound much like me (or the likes of me), then.

On the other hand, I would have thought that most of us are actually "Engineering Technicians". Back in the days when I was interested in this sort of thing myself, we used to be "regulated" by the CEI (no doubt someone can probably tell me what that's called these days ... the Engineering Council, perhaps?).

Meanwhile, others have indicated ways of taking the "profession" forward. In fact, I did so myself only recently when I suggested we adopt (ie, in the UK) BMET Certification on the US model.

I applaud your efforts, and wish you well with the new website especially, but still maintain that you're barking up the wrong tree. Bottom line for me is ... if it's voluntary, then it's no good! Primum non nocere.

Healthcare Scientists are defined as "A wide range of specialist disciplines that serve to underpin diagnostic ,testing, interpretative and direct treatment services for patients".
They broadly fall into 6 distinct groups, ie Biomedical Scientist, Clinical Scientist, Clinical Physiologist, Clinical Technologist, "Other Healthcare Scientists" and Clinical/Scientific Assistants. So being clinical technologists we seem to fit nicely into this group. So the question I now have is, can I now call myself a Scientist or should I stick to my title of technician that Ive had over the years?

Are you a "clinical technologist", then, kit? Apparently, you are only "expected" ("required"?) to join the Register if you claim to be one.


Note the wording:- "only undertakes ... ", as if the humble medical equipment engineering tech (ie, the hands-on guy) is somehow considered as some kind of lesser mortal.

I see the VRCT as the revenge of the Medical Physics types! Am I wrong?

I'm with you Geoff - damm their eyes those Medical Physics Types!

Started reading the biographies of those on the panel, and like in this department, as well as coming from college and working up through the ranks, a third of the people on the panel have come into this trade with varying & wide experience, such as ex RAF, ex Navy, ex TV repair trade.

So, this led me to think - RAF Avionics technician, probably on £32k, looking for a new career. Due to onset of regulation & no medical experience, they are offered a band 4 position (at best) - why would they want to come into this trade?

Whether people on this forum agree with people being rewarded for having previous engineering experience when they transfer across to this industry, I find it amazing that people cannot see what the long term repercussions will be to the medical engineering discipline when employers can no longer recruit people of similar calibre.

Comments welcome!

Why would our ex-RAF Avionics technician want to come into biomed in the first place, Eagle (that is, why wouldn't he want to stay in his own line of work)? And surely you wouldn't expect him to just fly straight onto the top of the heap, would you (he would have to be pretty exceptional to pull that one off, I would have thought)?


What makes you suppose that this will become the case? "Similar calibre" to whom ... those already working in biomed? What "long term repercussions" do you foresee? To my mind, biomed has already become fairly dumbed-down compared to what it was some years ago. There's a lot of "monkey-see, monkey-do" now, you know ... checklists, procedures that have to be followed etc., whilst there has been a reduction in good old-fashioned repair work (due to the kit becoming more reliable, due to in turn to improvements in the base technologies etc., etc.).

What if we are not eligible to join eg.
Band 6 ICU Technician 5 years experience ONC and there are a few of us in this category, however there are registrants on the VRCT who are not even technicians! (no relevant quals)
Also there is only a name and location (town) shown, how will that help a prospective patient check a particular departments staff if the department and in some cases the hospital is not identified ??? are they expected to personally know or be aquaited with the registrant??? Common sense please!!!
Who's getting rich from this!!!

If you're not eligible to join, Tony, why would you want to join?

I would say that the VRCT website speaks for itself, and I'm grateful to the team there in producing it for all to see, and be clear about what it is. As I've said all along, it is not meant for engineering technicians working on (ie, servicing, carrying out maintenance and repairs) and supporting (as in "technical support") medical equipment at all.

"Who's getting rich ..."? Who cares? If people have been daft enough to be frightened into paying subscriptions, that's their business.

Geoff, you and I seem to do the same job, service and repair medical devices, and as you know there has been many job titles to cover this line of work over the years –is clinical technologist not just the latest in this continuous line?. My point is that in most departments Ive worked in it always seemed an unattainable ambition to be in any of the best paid jobs as I am not a Physicists (“Scientist”) and thus could never reach too high up the ladder in any of these departments.

I have an HND in Physics and I did sign up to the VRCT a few years ago whilst I still had the chance to get on without having to posses a degree in a scientific discipline. Now with the advent of clinical technologists being recognised as Healthcare “Scientists” and with the VRCT now insisting on a scientific degree - is the gap between us and Physicists now shrinking and we can look forward to being on a level playing field? If we are excellent, I’ll look forward to catching up financially in the not the too distant future. If not, I don’t see the point in anyone bothering at all in going down this degree qualified route (Except for their own personal ambitions) as there is still going to be this great divide financially and status wise between Physicists and clinical technologists who will in effect have the same qualifications … ie scientific/engineering degrees. Although I enjoy the work we do I would not recommend to any young person to do a scientific degree in clinical technology knowing the financial and career restrictions that will be placed in their way. Does the work we do require a scientific degree?

Personally I’m not holding out too much hope in gaining anything at all from any of these developments but I really do wonder why I have been brought under the banner of “Healthcare Scientist” when I have to describe my job title as “Technician” and get paid as a technician.

If a person says that he's a "Rocket Scientist", and he's actually an Engineering Technician ... what's in a name? People can call themselves what they like, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation, does it?

And what's wrong with being (and being called) an Engineering Technician, anyway?

I'm all for gaining appropriate qualifications to suit the job, and an appropriate degree seems to be the norm these days as the minimum qualification.
It is important in any organisation/career structure that uniformity with regard to qualifications and experience is established.
However, you will always get the "elite" who want to go one better and raise the bar in order to set themselves apart from the general run of the mill workforce. Clinical Scientists are a case in point!!!!

Hi Geoff
i don't want to join VRCT as i don't see any benefit to me or the patients in my area and also knowing a domestic electrician is now required to part with on average £500 annually to be Part P registered, i have no doubt CT registration will eventually cost us all a packet. However, as an electronics technician who maintains ICU devices (vents,pumps, monitors etc) and is involved in patient transfers, INOmax set up and administration and HFOV setup, staff advice & training, trials & evals. etc, i fall firmly into the scope of a CT and therefore i feel i am required to be on VRCT, however as mentioned i am not eligible but i know registrants who are definitley not CTs in any way shape or form therefore they are not required to be on VRCT but they are. So, how did they get on their and does this mean any tom dick or harry can get on it if they were in post prior to Aug 2001.
Topper

To answer some questions posed in several posts above,

1)Yes, you probably should call yourself a "Healthcare Scientist" because

2) There is a "Healthcare Scientist" career structure and set of banding profiles which should (in theory) allow anyone to climb the ladder from band 1 up to band 9 by demonstrating the appropriate skills. It's linked into Skills for Health NOS frameworks, I leave it to those with supernatural insight to see how this will fit in to regulation though.


Yours No 42


PS Heres a link to DOH thinking on registration http://www.vrct.org.uk/vrct/Updates/DH%20Statement%20December%202007.pdf

There's no Tom, Dick or Harry in my gang, Mate!

Anyway, having said my piece I'm going to step back from this thread now, as I don't aspire to climbing the career ladder in the UK NHS (or anywhere else for that matter).

When you operate on the Dark Side you get paid for the work you actually do, regardless of whatever it is you call yourself, whatever job title you prefer, or whatever you pretend to be (or dream of becoming).

Have a nice peaceful day, guys.

I will be resisting joining the VRCT for as long as is humanly possible. I am incandescent with anger with the fact that I have to lash out money to an organisation, that has set themselves up as some sort of elite body, in order to do the job I'm paid to do. The requirement to do this in ANY industry, let alone EBME is an utter disgrace. I have been deemed to be an acceptable EBME Engineer (or whatever title you want to assign) by my immediate superiors. They are the ones who monitor my performance, not some tin-pot committee of people I've never heard of, who have never heard of me, and are never likely to meet.

Well said that man Of course the VRCT might be a very good idea but no-one from the "tinpot committee" has ever ventured north to explain the rationale for it far less to give us some kind of say or vote on it Until then my money stays in my pocket.

Nice one, Naitch!

Just a quick suggestion:- I've noticed that this thread is getting a great deal of attention, so the interest is obviously there. Anyone fancy setting up a poll, so we can establish a "vote" right here and now?

See here for an earlier one. Perhaps we need better (clearer) wording this time?

(that earlier thread - about IPEM really - is worth a quick review, by the way, as it touches on many of the "thorny issues" that this thread has raised [yet again])

My thoughts as well Naitch nice one

Well said mate.
As mentioned previously, we hear from these people but once a year when the annual subsciption is due. They must be so busy representing us that they've forgotten who we are.

What was it that they do for us again?

I don't believe it! I vented my spleen about VRCT, and I expected a barrage of abuse! Instead, I get a chorus of agreement! Must've done something wrong. Nevertheless, I thank every one of you...and you...and you...
On a serious note, my personal situation is a bit different. I had 17 good years with an Electronic Defence Company. When they made me redundant, it was right in the middle of a recession, so I took the first job that was closest to what I was doing, simply as I had to keep the money coming in to put food on the table. I thought, rather optimistically, that the job would improve as I 'bedded' myself in. It didn't - it got more medical and less electronic. Once I got my degree from the Open University, I tried working elsewhere, but I got caught out by company economics. At the moment, this is my 4th stint in Medical Physics (as we call it here) in 8 years.
From this, you can gather that I'm a bit p#ssed off with my professional life - bitter even. Roll on retirement.....oh, sorry, that's covered by another thread(!!!!!) I'm doing what I consider to be a poor job to the best of my ability, and some bunch of non-entities want to charge me £X per annum for the so-called priviledge. Not a chance! IF, and only if, the government (say) deem that Medical Technologists have to be registered, then they should foot the bill, not us. Imposing what amounts to a financial charge for (in some cases) pursuing the profession that some of us followed by choice is a dis-incentive, and should be resisted at all costs.

Up the revolution!!!!!!

Here's a bit of advice from Uncle Geoff. You should never allow yourself to become a victim. If people are treating you badly (not giving you the respect you feel you deserve, and all the rest), then perhaps it's because you haven't made it clear how you want to be treated. Personally, I'm a great advocate of the "quiet word, and the gentle touch", but at the end of the day I don't take s**te (it rhymes with "height") from anybody. Why not adopt that style yourself?

Surely the bottom line must be, if you're really that unhappy, perhaps it's time to ask yourself the question ... ? Each of us only has one life to live, after all, so it's best not to waste it in bitterness (or, more especially, despair)!

Sometimes you just have to resist. For example, I have noticed that, in Modern Britain (and in the NHS especially), there seems to be more and more so-called "assertive" people about. Often, it has to be said, these are young, casually dressed women (usually with a stethoscope as their only means of adornment). Sometimes I encounter the other type; that is the "power-dressing" executive class of woman, intent (it would seem) on bull-dozing through whatever agenda they are promoting this week (with little or no regard for the needs or sensibilities of others, as long as their own personal "targets" are driven towards). Very sad people, indeed. Then there is the other type I sometimes see in the hospitals, the "attractive" (to some, perhaps) young woman using her sexuality to peddle equipment and supplies. Well, I must admit that I sometimes find great sport in stopping such people in their tracks! 'Nuff said on that one, I think.

Meanwhile (being the nurses' advocate ... ), the women I do like to see about the hospitals are the plain, caring type, generally quietly working away in the background. They usually (but not always) tend to be the more "junior" ladies. Those who strive to meet the "angels of mercy" model. I support those people 100% (and even don't mind taking a bit of "stick" from them now and then, especially if it's deserved)! By and large, it's them who are delivering the care that the patients are there for.

As I've probably said before, there is no way to happiness, happiness is the way. Enjoy your work! Being a biomed (an engineering technician, that is) is a decent, honourable enough line to be involved in. Be human! It's not about making big bucks, it's about giving a damn.

This post is a personal response.

I have serious concerns about the personal attacks that I and my colleagues have to endure on this Forum - "we hear from these people but once a year"; "an organisation, that has set themselves up as some sort of elite body"; "and some bunch of non-entities (sic)"; "tinpot committee"; "Who's getting rich from this!!!"

At least Geoff Hannis makes his comments without accusations of a derogative or personal nature and which are based on sound argument and not of personal criticism. I am happy to accept such arguments as it allows me to hopefully persuade him and he to respond to me appropriately!

And, by the way,I gave a presentation about the VRCT in Inverness in 2005 and a colleague gave one in Glasgow in 2006. If anyone wants to have a presentation about the VRCT please let me know.

The Code of Conduct of the VRCT says quite clearly: "Do not recklessly or maliciously attempt to injure, either directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects or business of another Clinical Technologist." So I guess that is why those who make these comments, especially anonymously, don't want to be part of the VRCT as they know they are unable to be courteous or professionally accountable for their comments about their colleagues - of whom I am one!

Jim Methven

This has nothing to do with the VRCT and everything to do with Agenda for Change!

Jim Methven

I feel there is an air of paranoia, which is quite frankly unfounded from many camps. In essence the registration is a good thing and will eventually if embraced adequately, will raise standards nationally. Those individuals and departments already working to a high standard will not have to change, but others will have to raise their game or loose their registration..... If they do not want to adopt best practice and professional standards, will they be missed?

Yes, it will make recruiting more difficult in the short term, but with time, mindsets change and anyone wishing to pursue a career in clinical technology will have to train and demonstrate competancy in their chosen field rather than drift into it.

So essentially Geoff, you and I agree that a registration model is the correct way forward? It is just the fine detail we disagree on! Thus, with a little effort, we could actually agree on what we need to do to ensure that the Medical Engineering profession is developed appropriately?

Jim

Hardly "fine detail", Jim. Fundamental disagreement is more like it, I would have thought! Voluntary Registration and Certification by examination are two different things (two different approaches), are they not? And I imagine it will take more than just a "little effort" to convince you to scrap the VRCT altogether!

As your website clearly points out, there are fundamental differences between the Health Professions Council (HPC) and the Engineering Council (ECUK). I see no reason why those of us who are engineering technicians need to be, in effect, "doubly regulated". As was hinted at earlier, to my mind it all harks back to the age-old Medical Physics versus EBME turf wars (life's too short)! Personally, I see no need for all these little gangs (societies, institutes, associations). There are far too many of them. If people need somewhere to make their case, and vent off a little occasionally, why not do it right here?

I appreciate what you were saying earlier, Jim, but I would suspect that the "strength of feeling" expressed by some on this thread simply demonstrates that many biomed techs simply do not agree to the VRCT ideal (if that's what it is). My take is (now that I've taken a look at your website), many of us have no business being on the Register anyway (ie, because we are simply engineering technicians of the hands-on type), as we are, in no shape or form, either "Clinical Technologists" or "Health Scientists". The resentment is there because many seem to fear that NHS biomed posts will soon insist on VRCT membership. Personally, I doubt that this will be the case for those involved in maintenance and repair work. But, as I have already said:-

Dear Mr Methven,
I choose not to hide behind a cloak of anonymity but I can understand why other people do. This is a public forum where personal opinions can be freely expressed. Maybe now you can see your VRCT is not universally liked for a number of reasons. As I am not member of your list I certainly haven't broken any of your rules. As stated the reason I am not currently a member is because I don't know enough about it to make an informed decision although like most people I find it strange that I will have to pay someone to let me keep my job.

I also find it strange that you have arranged not one but two presentations in Scotland and that I have never been invited, so yes the EBME people here in Aberdeen would like a presentaion on the VRCT. We need answers to questions like, Will I lose my job if don't/can't join. I will e-mail you to see if a presentaion can be arranged.

Your code of conduct also states "Take all reasonable steps to maintain and develop professional knowledge and
competence, ensuring that people working under your supervision do the same.
Maintain a record of evidence of your Continuing Professional Development and
ensure that those working under you do likewise" and yet none of the people that I know who joined are doing this. How do you intend to police this and what do I do about my colleagues who are obviously not fulling their obligations.

Overall it is not a question of whether or not to join the VRCT. It is all about how to get on the compulsory register that WILL be here in the next couple of years. The government have made it abundantly clear that all professions linked to patient care (not just direct carers) will be regulated.

In my personal view the best way to prepare for registration was to join the VRCT and get a good trial run of CPD etc. whilst my job was not on the line. If you want to know what happens to those in regulated professions who let their registrations lapse just ask in your local Pathology lab, as they seem to have bourn the brunt of recent HPC "management issues".
Basically, not being registered will not prevent anyone from working, BUT, they will have to be supervised which will, probably, affect afc banding.
I am not saying that regulation is a good thing in itself, but closing your eyes and hoping it will go away is never a good idea.

New jobs all round then I think.

Its very rare that I post altho' I read with bated breath some of the issues I see, personally I think the way forward is via VRCT etc no matter what our moans profesional registration will happen, those that are against it tuff get over it!!
All I will say is sorry people if I've ruffled some feathers!! Stop living in the dark ages.

The actual work of providing technical support to the users of medical equipment will still be there and needing to be done. What if no-one had their name listed on the "Register" ... would management (and the government etc.) let the unserviceable kit just mount up, and have the user departments rendered "unfit for purpose" one by one? Are techs working for outside companies "clinical technologists"? ... they certainly don't appear to meet the "spec" given on the VRCT website!

It aint on my terms of reference or my contract anywhere about registration. We are employed to do a job we do it so this worry about if you are not registered you will have to be supervised (by who!!!) is complete [censored].

If everyone stands together there will be no registration implemented unless it is free their choice. I have no problem with registration just giving away money to faceless individuals who do what in our name.

There are a few thousand included on the VRCT. if employers must employ individuals that are regulated by the HPC then I guess they need just enough in each scope of practice to run a service.

I think it's pretty obvious that the VRCT is already influencing the requirements for fully qualified "technicians" already working in healthcare. It's intended to drive standards of training, qualifications and experience, up not down.

VRCT is about laying the groundwork so that individuals who will be eligible to use protected titles working in healthcare, thus be identified as fully qualified, working within the relevant scope of practice, can move over to the HPC register.

It's up to the employer to implement the mandatory aspects of HPC regulation, such as use of protected titles, providing CPD resources, becoming involved in training/education, setting up the career structure within their organisations, etc.

Regulation has benfits as well as drawbacks. Not everybody is going to be eligible. From what I see those that aren't eligible don't seem to be the types that want to progress, want to improve their situation. If they don't want to they don't have to.

The politics of registration, regulation, etc, etc, have been going on for many years. Regulation has been on the way for a very long time. Heads in the sand will not make it go away.

I have read almost all the arguments about the VRCT - I have decided to go to one of their briefs and find out what all the fuss is about. If i dont think it is worth it then i won't bother!

P.S A big thank you to Geoff & Bill mcg on their advice on this matter.

All the Best

Darth "Still not a real" Welder

Yes, Richard, but it doesn't make it right! What is the actual aim of all this ... protecting patients? How does it do that, then?

As I keep saying, at least a Certified BMET scheme will ensure that those who are qualified in such a way will have actually proved their competency in an open, transparent (international, even), manner.

How does BMET achieve this? Do all individuals working as technicians working in healthcare in the US/Canada have to sit this exam (and have a biomedical engineering degree, relevant training, plus relevant experience, of course)?

You're saying regulate the "fully qualified", i.e. certificated, individual, not the post they hold, irrespective of their employer, as long as they carry out the work of a biomedical engineering technician, am I correct?

This would mean more stringent and restrictive requiements on individuals (even for those currently in post, who'd have to sit an exam to continue working) would it not? I am beginning to like it. How can this be driven forward then?

... answer?

No, not everyone is a CBET. I'm just taking the view that this is probably a better way of moving forward. Just because a person does not support VRCT does not necessarily mean that he has his "head stuck in the sand" (or anywhere else, for that matter).

If CBET doesn't apply to everyone then how do we prevent those technicians that are not certificated from doing harm?, i.e. how do we regulate those who are not certificated?

Who decides what roles can and can't be undertaken by non-certificated personnel?

Surely a degree in clinical technology and/or vocational training provided by a training department/fully qualified trainers and hands-on experience, plus regulation, or "certification by HPC", that is endorsed and implemented by a professional institution (IPEM) and employers (e.g. NHS) in healthcare is as good a scheme?


The protection being provided by (for example):

1). Only employing individuals who are "fully qualified" in roles that have the potential to do harm.

2). Enabling supervision of those that aren't fully qualified so they do not have the same potential to do do harm.

3). Ensuring that competencies, knowledge and training are maintained.

I will admit that a formal examination similar to CBET/BMET, taken every few years, for example, appeals to me.


I take it from your response, Geoff, the answer is no - is this actually the case? So what prevents those who are not certificated from presenting risk to themsleves or others?

It'd be interseting to hear from any of our colleagues in the USA or Canada how the system Geoff mentions is intended to work (or how it actually works).

We have zillions of laws in England, we have the most "security" cameras per capita than anywhere else on Planet Earth. We are probably already the most regulated of societies in the Universe.

And yet we are still infested with scag-heads, "sleeper terrorists", hoodies, "job seekers" on perpetual benefits, and people who don't want to work (thereby necessitating armies of foreign workers to invade our shores). We have local council spies looking in our wheelie-bins, police who take great delight in constantly closing our arterial highways for extended periods, we have endless "risk assessments" aimed at stopping people doing the jobs they have always done, and all the rest.

We also have a so-called National Health Service that often gives a shoddy service to the sick and needy it's meant to be there to serve, whilst providing the last public sector "safe haven" for thousands and thousands of people who have never done a real day's work in their entire life.

And you ask me "how do we prevent technicians from doing harm"? Simple, once they are found to be below par, or found lacking in any way, they get fired. How does that sound?

I rest my case, and hereby retire from this futile debate!

Unfortunately, Geoff, based on past experience and for some of the reasons you've already been kind enough to elaborate on, I think that technicians who are below par have actually been employed, or promoted into roles they're not qualified to do, precisely because we don't have regulation. Yes, and some of us are trying to improve that situation by whatever means is available - even if it means having to take a "path of least resistance" to regulation that may not be ideal for everybody. Incidentally I'm on holiday - so my posts are on my own time today. Before anybody assumes I'm posting on NHS time.........

To add to the mix, what makes an EBME tech any more qualified than a electronics tech. My qualifications as an elctronics tech have been ok up till now so whats the difference because I sure as hell cant see any.

You test/calibrate to the manufacturer specification as in any other electronics post. You sign to say that you have adhered to the test specification.

Whats so in need of registration in this job. I didnt see it in the other jobs that I have done, which have had more of a bearing on safety.

Richard,You asked the time between exams ( re-certification ) for CBET, it is 4 years, or it was in the 1980,s.
Tony. I can send more detail in a PM if you wish. T.

Thanks Tony.

Hello Geoff

The problem may be who do you 'fire' - the individual or the person that 'hired' the individual.

Barney

Both, of course!

After all, when all is said and done, VRCT is more about Medical Physics than EBME, or biomed. I think that's the point that many may be missing!

No. It's about medical engineering. There's a scope of practice on the VRCT website that defines the sort of work carried out by "Clinical Technologists". EBME and Medical Physics are just names - typically given to departments in the NHS - the use of the term Medical Physics or EBME for the work we do is incorrect.

I rarely hear the name biomed used for technicians in the UK - that's something used by expats who've been exposed to individuals from the USA/Canada - typically in the Middle East or Africa. It's a name that has (had) some kudos in these countries that's been hijacked by CBET "wannabes" I reckon.

Not that I'm "knocking" the qualification - I can't possibly do that because I'm not officially considered as a medical technician myself - precisely because of a lack of registration/recognition/ certification/regulation, in my own country.

I'm OK with Medical Engineering as a term that describes the department that looks after and services the medical equipment for a hospital.
Clinical Technologist I'm not so happy about because by using the term Clinical implies that the person or job has some form of interface with patients, which is not always the case. In addition, by using the description of Clinical (as in technologist of scientist) also implies that you have undertaken some form of clinical training, which again is not the case.
The only group of "technicians" who I think have a right to use the term Clinical are the Perfusionists who have to undergo a form of clinical training. This is due to the fact that they carry out interventional procedures on patients.

Spot on, Kawa.

What's in a name? Personally I don't care about the name - but for regulation that's what is protected. Not everyone working in maintenance "just fixes kit" - although I have seen a couple of departments where technicians are organised like a battery-hens in little cubicles where equipment is fed to them by the supervisor just like they're in a factory.

Perhaps a look at the VRCT scope of practice is in order. The VRCT has to cater for a wide range of roles within medical engineering. To do this there are always going to be individuals who feel they don't cover all of the scope.

Attitudes and approaches to the provision of services very much depend on the way individual departments are organised, the range of skills within it, the people managing it, etc, etc. Most importantly what the demand is from the operators, i.e. clincians, Nurses and clinical technicians, i.e. clinical physiologists, etc.

It would be useful if customers knew what they could expect from departments like ours wouldn't it? A similar level of basic services provided by technicians; trained and qualified to a similar level who could give the same level of support perhaps?

I have always understood the word clinical to mean (roughly) "at the sickbed". Or if you like, "concerned with the treatment of disease in patients". You don't normally do clinical work at the workbench!

I've been asked to do plenty of work "at the sickbed" by clincians and Nurses however since the loss of "Crown Immunity" years ago and the fact that I'm not regulated, thus have little protection because I present a potential risk to the patient in this scenario, then this is much reduced - although, personally speaking, I'm happy to "advise" at the bedside if an operator is having difficulty, e.g. difficulty when monitoring a physiological parameter, due to faulty cables, etc.

I'm in clincial areas a lot of the time and so are my colleagues - providing advice and responding to issues concerning medical devices. We don't have to be "mopping patients brows" to be clinical - although I'm not particularly bothered what I'm called. I'm not keen on being called Bio-medical Engineer but my employer calls me that - I'm not actually an Engineer and not sure what Bio-Medical means.

Engineering departments do have a lot of input into the use of clinical devices that affect the level of patient care for example. Some get involved with adapting medical devices and systems, etc.

The term you used to define Clinical is "concerned with the treatment of disease in patients" is this not what medical devices are concerned with - the same devices we "fiddle about with" and give advice relating to? For many specialist clinical knowledge is required to do this job. Specialist clinical knowledge does not mean I have to be a Doctor or Nurse.

Yes, Richard, and your point nicely reinforces mine (given recently at another thread) that we shouldn't come under "Engineering", but rather "Nursing", "Medical", or whatever.

Biomeds are concerned with supporting clinical users (rather than patients, by the way), whilst engineers (hospital engineers, building services, facilities etc.) are concerned rather with "mopping the brow" ("fiddling about", even) of pumps, motors, boilers et al!

What does EBME stand for, by the way ...?

Across the NHS departments like ours are involved at the highest levels because of the perceived risk associated with medical devices. The problem is that what we do can put the patient and operators at risk. That's why regulation, i.e. VRCT is considered necessary. The employer has decided that regulation is necessary and that this will be carried through, whatever you or I think about that.

EBME - Electronics and Bio-Medical Engineering - What does Bio-Medical engineering mean?

Assuming the VRCT is advocating that any Registrant can perform all or part of the scope of practice for a CT, then what would happen if the Registrants i have indicated in previous posts were to atempt to do so, would the VRCT be liable for any incident. I stress again these registrants have no business being members, its, not their fault, they were instructed to join. What i am getting at is that VRCT has effectively allowed the membership of unskilled persons based on the date they were in post (pre Aug 2001) and no doubt verification by another Registrant. Patient safety guaranteed ? i think not.
Also regarding my so called "personal attack", i am only voicing my own and many colleagues feelings about Registration in a forum provided for this, nothing i have said is ever intended to be personal, it is simply disagreement. As for breaching the VRCT SOP, i am not a member!
Finally, there are those in this country who want to work and those that do not, and i am sick and tired of the former being charged to do so in any form.
Topper a.k.a.(Tony Harley Senior Critical Care Technologist New Cross Hospital Wolverhampton)

Wikipedia states that:-

Engineering is the discipline of acquiring and applying scientific and technical knowledge to the design, analysis, and/or construction of works for practical purposes.

The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development, also known as ECPD,[1] (later ABET),[2] defines Engineering as: "The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behaviour under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property."

Biomedical engineering (BME) is the application of engineering principles and techniques to the medical field. It combines the design and problem solving skills of engineering with the medical and biological science to help improve patient health care and the quality of life of healthy individuals.

Clinical engineering is a branch of biomedical engineering for professionals responsible for the management of medical equipment in a hospital. The tasks of a clinical engineer are typically the acquisition and management of medical device inventory, supervising biomedical engineering technicians (BMETs), ensuring that safety and regulatory issues are taken into consideration and serving as a technological consultant for any issues in a hospital where medical devices are concerned. Clinical engineers work closely with the IT department and medical physicists.

Personally I trained as an electronics engineer and have for many years done less and less electronics and more and more paperwork.

I found that IPEM appears to concentrate on imaging and was producing little that helped me in my work so have cancelled my membership; I have stayed on the VRCT however I am not sure that IPEM are the right organisation to have been given the task of running it.

Lee

After 32 years as an electonics technician (yes part of it spent as a scourge of the universe Avionics technician in the RAF)I don't think I personally require registration. However I suppose I don't mind paying a modest annual admin. charge to be put onto a database. (Anything for a quiet life)Where I hit problems is the fact that " Charges will have to increase considerably" (as quoted from the VRCT website). Who will be raking off all this money in? what if anything of value does the technician get back for it?

Best wishes,

Paul Latham

I think funds are needed to administer the VRCT. When HPC regulation is introduced being included on the VRCT will make the transfer onto HPC, for those with protected titles (it will not include everybody, possibly even those on VRCT now), cheaper - so we're informed.

The general ideas of professional institutions are that they are there to promote the profession, education, training, development, etc, etc. Very few of these views I see in the posts above. Perhaps you should either find another profession that you prefer being part of or maybe just don't get involved, and don't worry about it.

Under HPC that would be down to your employer giving these jobs or tasks to only those with protected titles or ensuring that others are adequately supervised by those who are required to do so and have protected titles. Otherwise they'd be breaking the law I suppose - there is legislation associated with HPC regulation.

Also the NHS employer has been notified that it should be looking to implementing regulation for those of us employed in Medical Technology as far as I'm aware - look it up on the VRCT website.


If this is the case then I don't see that you have any right to influence how it develops then. Perhaps you need to find another occupation if you're not interested in promoting it.


When HPC regulation comes along I doubt you'll be legally entitled to use this title, Topper, unless you are on the part of the VRCT register for SCCT - which is the same thing you're criticising her, in fact. If your employer does allow you to use this and you're not registered then I guess there could be problems.

Dear Richard,

Quote: "... or maybe just don't get involved, and don't worry about it."

I'd be delighted not to get involved in it but isn't this going to be Compulsory?

Best wishes

Paul.

No - it can't possibly be compulsory for everybody - how can you be involved if you're considered by your peers, i.e. those included on the VRCT, not fully qualified (as a Clinical Technologist)?

As a result, through no fault of your own (unless you just refuse if you are eligible for VRCT/HPC) if your employer can't give you a job title of Clinical Technologist, because you're not been on the VRCT or eligible to be included on the HPC register, you will have to be supervised by fully qualified individual in that case I suppose. And given a different job-title I suppose (or keep the one you have if it's not protected).

HPC regulation is mandatory for those given protected titles - in future (if it materialises) not being considered fully qualified under HPC regulation, i.e. not on the HPC register, then how could you be given such a title by your employer (who has to meet mandatory requirements)?

You will probably remain where you are supervised by others considered to be more qualified than you, irrespective of your previous career choices, or sadly, ability in electronics (we do not all just fix kit) - your choice. I'm only guessing how things will be implemeted in the future but this is likely given the way other regulated profession seem to operate.

Not everyone is going to be required to have a protected title. So why worry if you're not eligible for VRCT. Maybe you should wait and see what happens if and when HPC regulation is implemented.

OK, Richard you've sold registration to me. But I come back to my original point regarding charges, I don't mind forking out a modest annual charge but these charges will increase considerably in due course. (ie when it becomes Compulsory)

Ultimately, as with most things this will be accountant driven and we all know what accountant and a Compulsory customer in a non competitive market make don't we? yes exactly, feeding frenzy.

Best wishes

Paul.

This year the unions secured a contribution from the NHS employer towards payment of mandatory regulation fees for some of the new healthcare professions I think - Look on the pay deal for last April on the NHS employers, AMICU health or UNISON website(s).

In future I'd expect any trades union I'm a member of to be fighting for 100% contributions towards payment of mandatory registration fees from the employer. Don't tell me - you won't pay union fees either......

Richard
Quote "If this is the case then I don't see that you have any right to influence how it develops then. Perhaps you need to find another occupation if you're not interested in promoting it."
I'm more concerned about getting on with my occupation than promoting it.(to who anyway?)
As for my right to influence how "it" develops, whether it be this thread or Registration that you are referring to,i'm not trying to, however i say i do have every right as someone who may be affected by it and i have excercised that right.
I should however specify it is "Regulation/Registration" that i disagree with and not specifically VRCT.
Topper

Promoting it so it doen't disappear up its own backside, i.e. it becomes even less recognised relative to other professions that have since become regulated, than it is now. VRCT was actually setup to enable a transition to the HPC register, in fact.

Hi Topper, having read some of what has been said, I would like to shove a tanners worth in support of you.
When someone tries to control a point of view from an individual then that is nothing short of disgraceful. Forums are about free speech and exactly that. Censorship or censure should not be allowed. What is being said by an individual is their point of view but bullying to shut someone up to curtail the tread should not be allowed. So lets have an open forum.... Ah Hum..... The government would like to control every aspect of our lives if only it could. So to work we have someones "notion" "lets organise lets regulate lets control". So you have a job and have it for many years you do the job with no problems and hey presto someone comes along with the power to take that job off you just because you don't bend to the idea of paying Mr Brown and his cronies some more of your hard earned cash as another Stealth Tax. Of course there is always the union fighting to get your subs paid... but what if I am not in a union (after all it is a free country) what if nobody was in a union... just by the fact that concessions have been made indicates that the Stealth Tax was wrong "Registration Fees" in the first place. Remember when things go wrong it is usually because someone has decided to fix what was not broken in the first place. VRCT appeared from nowhere in an instant just like the universe and guess what you have to pay for the priveledge of keeping your job sounds a bit like a car parking charge levied by a Wheel Clamper does'nt it. I like my job but I abhore state interference driven by agents of the state in their many guises and some of them seem to be appearing in this thread. As for Unions what union negotiates a pay cut for it members... all of them ... why because they are all in the pockets of this sleazy government. All spelling mistakes are on purpose .... why because I Can!

It has been mentioned that under the pay deal for last year the nurses were awarded that over genourous £42 all good when there fees for the year are nearly £90 now. So anyone who is under the illusion that when the registration comes that they wont hike the price up every year will be sorely disappointed.

If it aint in your contract what are they going to do. Everyone is entitled to spend their money as they feel fit but this getting on the band wagon as it is cheaper now. (Cheaper than what!!!)

Ill wait until the end I think, the money is better in my pocket.

I think that bringing party politics into a discussion that's centered around occupational standards and regulation is disgraceful and does not contribute to the discusion whatsoever -it's politically biased and irrelevant. Not the first time that individuals on this site have expressed political and racial views on this site when they're irrelevant. Regulation has been discussed for years and years, prior to this, the previous government and the one before that, in fact. Labour and Conservative, to my knowledge.

Not once in this thread has anyone suggested that others are are not entitled to an opinion - but if individuals aren't fully aware of what they're discussing then it's easy to end up in a weak position. However politics should be left for politicians - on a soapbox elsewhere than this forum in fact. there are plenty of political forums out there. No-ones suggested anyone is going to lose a job that any individual wishes to control or that anyone is bullying. You are talking absolute rubbish Tim (in my opinion) Nothing to do with VRCT - just your own politically motivated ramblings it seems. Keep to the thread please.

Tell me how long you've been working in your job and maybe Jim Methven would be kind enough to inform us how long that the various associations involved have been trying to push registration for technicians in healthcare.

VRCT is administered using the dues from registrants - 2,750 registrants - add it up - it's not a fortune, relatively speaking, at a tenner a go. VRCT is administered by a charity (IPEM) so I guess very little goes to the government coffers?


You've got a job with entitlements that I and colleagues who have paid trades union subs for all their working life have contributed to - you probably haven't but your certainly happy to benefit from the cost of living rises and benefits that are negotiated every year by the unions, eh?

Something is better than nothing in the NHS (or should I say something for nothing in your case, perhaps?) - as is collective bargaining (in my opinion).


Not true - I've been included on the VRCT for 8 years and regulation has been discussed much longer than that. I suggest you get your facts right before you shoot your mouth off in public.


This is an outrageous statement that you ought to be taken to task for - completely untrue if you're inferring that my motives are political - I have no political or government affiliations whatsoever and I've nothing to do with VRCT other than being included on the register - like 2-3,000 others are.

In fact I feel so strongly about problems I perceive with the political system that I've never voted in my life and I never will until we have proportional representation. I won't participate in something I don't believe in - much like you won't, it seems, without the bitterness and bile I might add.

I don't think party politics and issues with government should be brought into soemthing like VRCT that's been kicked about for years and years, not just "popped up out of nowhere".


I got a better pay deal out of AFC actually - I suspect there are a lot of individuals in medical engineering that did Ok (but didn't expect to) out of AFC. In my opinion precisely because the unions attempted to set things right, i.e. make sure that employers didn't do us wrong, especially after the farce concerning consultation and representations from staff willing to speak out about injustices in the system.

Gentlemen I think this is getting a little bit out of hand now!! Please stick to the thread I now everyone has personal opinions, but please don't air your dirty linen in public!!

... so, what else is new?

I have to ask the question 'Why has certain people been pushing for registration'. For whos benefit. Not for mine that is for sure. Some say its for our protection 'I say [censored]'. Some say it is to protect patients 'I say it didnt protect the patients murdered by registered Doctors and Nurses over the years' (Recent case in point). Some say its to give us a training goal, 'Who pays for it', because I know our trust and many others in this financial climate wont stump up the money.


So can anyone really hand on heart tell us what we are getting from this or any other registration.

I know somone will come back with the line 'Its to check the person can do the job', but is that not what references are for.

You're right Noddy.
I have to allow the 'right to reply' though.

But you are correct, let's steer this back on course, gents.

Yes ... nothing!



Yes, ... indeed!

And if it's about training (which it isn't), see the current theard about ICC BMET Certification.

Oh dear, I have struck a nerve hav'nt I, still it goes to prove a point.. There are those that are wise and those that are not. The fee aspect of registration is important in this discussion as it is only part of the costs involved at this point and it will become an escalator with no doubt. getting the thread back on course, I was'nt aware that it had actually moved off. An open discussion should contain the warts and all as long as the core of the issue is still there and there was nothing that I posted which deviated from that core point on this free discussion in my opinion. As for the political aspect and keeping it out of the discussion, I suggest Mr RJL does his homework (in depth) and possibly reads my comments again before he shoots his mouth off also. No union helped me get my job.... I got it on my own merits and hey the union does not pay the registration fees for me does it. To assume that I have not paid my dues during my working life is an insult from RJL to which he should be ashamed of himself for turning this healthy forum into his own personal soapbox. I note that he RJL has a lot to say but "garbage in, is garbage out" comes easily to mind.

Sounds like you just want to stir things up. I've no interest in no-marks Tim. This forum is healthy because individuals like myself discuss the issues and don't prescribe to politically or racially motivated insults, not directly aimed at individuals anyhow. If the forum would prefer me not to post then why not have a poll to see if they'd rather listen to your politically biased slurs and personal insults?

For you, Geoff, there is no benefit - you're already fully qualified by prior relevant training and experience as a medical engineer but you don't work in the NHS (where I still believe the NHS is what VRCT & HPC regulation is intended to target, predominantly, right or wrong). If you're not interested in VRCT and not involved on a voluntary basis then you're not getting anything from it anyhow, never will, and it has cost you nothing.

If you take into account the internal politics and history, then you would see that it's a way to get onto the HPC register that is likely to be setup for those with protected titles, i.e. regulated professions, working in healthcare.

If you looked at other recently regulated professions in the NHS the benefits are that recognised training schemes and education is being setup, where they didn't exist before or had been discontinued, to meet the demand. They will never be setup nationally by NHS employers or organisations by any other means, in my opinion, and the dearth of individuals with recognised training, skills and experience in medical engineering would continue.

The current NHS organisation does not support training of professions that are not regulated as far as I can tell. The VRCT and HPC is the price to be paid for a career structure and hopefully more resources for training & development, in my opinion.

Full-time on the job training in medical engineering (run by the hospital physicists, nationally, for years, as it happens) was shut down in the 80's and ignored by employers who wanted "bums on seats" at the lowest cost - leading to occupations that were employing older and older staff who were reasonably well trained and qualified and others coming in who had to be supported - with lesser and non relevant qualified coming into the professions with little hope of a decent career path. When they were trained the medical industry usually poached trained technicians by offering a better salary.

If the NHS were setup to offer decent salaries for qualified professionals, employed in protected roles, my view we would not have had this sort of situation. Currently this is why we have problems with a lack of skills in the workforce and problems recruiting at senior levels.

The problem will get worse, especially in the NHS, because of the new AFC banding structure requiring practitioners to be "fully qualified" in order to earn a reasonable living, commensurate with their qualifications, i.e. Band 6 (up to ~£32K). This means that anyone trying to get in without being fully qualified according to AFC/HPC will be forced onto lower salaries commensurate with their "lower qualifications", irrespective of prior non-relevant experience, (<<32K).

VRCT has nothing to do with pay scales but being fully qualified is a benchmark that the employers will continue to use whether regulation is with us or not. Because there's no other benchmark VRCT is becoming a benchmark for qualifications, skills, training and experience - voluntarily supported by thousands of peers in medical engineering.

Without future regulation then the jobs will continue to be progressvely "dumbed-down", salaries will continue to be be eroded and lower paid entrants relatively untrained - this is Ok for short term financially biased agendas of estates and medical physics departments but it's not sustainable nationally.

Status, relative to occupations we have been aligned will will erode, making the problem worse. We end up with no career structure since we excude oursleves from the NHS "professional" system.

At least recognised routes into the job will bring qualified people in at appropriate grades, allow them to be properly trained in medical engineering and then allow them to progress.

The benefits of regulation (which is where VRCT is heading) are that it will push the requirements to setup the foundations to promote training schemes leading to a career in medical engineering; within the NHS at least. Regulation will prevent us being marginalised even furthers and it will allow those willing to take on the specialist training to get onto the register to progress.

Regulation is coming anyhow because of VRCT - thousands have expressed their interest in being regulated (not all will e given protected roles by their employer I suspect). But it makes sense to get involved if you want to work in a profession in the NHS rather then just a job that's be driven down and down.

AFC is already here in the NHS, whether we like it or not, so the restructuring of the NHS is already affecting the grades within medical engineering - driving them down, not up, since the required skills aren't out there in the workplace to fill higher grades. If they do get filled then the applicants may not be the ideal.

It's not about the potential gains from VRCT/HPC it's what we stand to lose if we're not regulated. I'm talking gains to the profession and the "professional" wellbeing of the majority in the longterm and, as usual, there are individuals thinking only of themselves in the short term.

"racially motivated" Richard? now i've heard it all!
If anything it's your own rantings that appear personal/political etc. ("resistance is futile" springs to mind)
It appears you are unable to accept the validity of anybody's comments that disagree with your own ideals. I have noted in previous posts your constant referral to ex Avionics Techs for example of which i am one, but i haven't complained or discredited your comments. You now appear to be doing that yourself, very efficiently and making unfounded assumptions of posters, therefore i will no longer reply to the disections of mine and others posts by yourself as they have no validity. I regret that this thread appears to have degenerated into an interpersonal slanging match, however there is as always one common denominator, yes, you bring it on yourself. END.
Now, back to the core issue please.

"The current NHS organisation does not support training of professions that are not regulated as far as I can tell. The VRCT and HPC is the price to be paid for a career structure, in my opinion" quote from Mr Ling

Yes they do! - at MSC Clinical Engineering in Cardiff several of the NHS employed students have recieved funding from the NHS - they ones that didn't were the MOD students.

On the VRCT - Why is it still voluntary? The VRCT in my view is like putting lipstick on a Pig - ITS STILL A PIG!

Darth Welder aka Rab C ECE

So what I'm saying will be benefits of VRCT and regulation are actually happening in practice - fantastic - that proves my argument.

That is the Welsh NHS then. As I said it's aimed primarily at the NHS so I'm not surprised what you say about funding and I disagree that MOD entrants shouldn't be funded in the same way - that's a shame.

Saying that I paid 75% of my MSc in Biomedical Engineering and all of my degree whilst in the NHS, plus a propotion (50% I think)of my HNC whilst in the NHS. This means that things ae changing for the better then.

It's an example, Topper, if you look at the context of the posts. I've also used the example of non-experienced graduate electronics engineers if you actually read that post - deliberately in fact so that it was balanced.

Are you going to tell me that day-one an ex-avionics engineer or graduate is going to be employed as a fully qualified medical engineer in the NHS at Band 6? Take whatever you like out of context but if you do reference it to the post, please.

From my perspective individuals have assumed political, financial assumptins about my motives, and I am expected to accept that. When I repsond in the same manner then I am criticised again. I post facts not insults, I argue when I disagree.

Political and Racially motivated insults? You do like bandying words around, are you are having a bad day? Are you trying to represent the Professional face of being registered RJL, if so I am glad to know what you appear to look like... and it is not like the face of the Technologists I work with. As you and others will be aware all of the insults have come from you and you reap what you sow. getting back to the thread Ah Hum so how much will this registration cost us in the long run and how deep are your pockets

What insults, Tim, based upon what you've posted? Aimed at you personally, which ones?



You mean like this? I am nobody's crony and VRCT is not a tax. You posted it.



You mean like this? Who's stopped you arguing or expressing your views? You posted it.



You mean this one? Members ARE the union. You posted it.



You mean this one? You posted it.



You mean like this one? You posted it.


You mean like this one? You posted it.



Sounds like bullying to me......you posted it.

No, absolutely not - I don't represent VRCT professionally, these are personal views based upon working in this job for over 20 years. I'm posting on my own time and trying to stand up to a bully.

In fact YOU, TIM, posted all of these comments and, in fact, YOU are the person who started posting nonsense like this. He's still not come up with any arguments relating to the VRCT thread only insults all the way!

Hi bcarlisle,



I''ve given my reasons why I think it's for "the profession" and me - it's obviously damaging for me personally and probably professionally to take the time to do that but I'm willing to take the flak.

Why do you think it's not for you?

Hi DW,



Just out of interest were the MOD individuals employed in biomedical engineering previously or were they looking for employment at the end of their term in the forces?

Perhaps they didn't meet the criteria for funding from the NHS? Can't really blame the NHS for that if they're employed by the MOD I suppose.

Heres one for Richard.

You said about an exavionics tech walking straight into a band 6.

Well it happens and not too far from where I am sitting. No medical back ground.

To add to it someone with a back ground in Radar that I have worked with is on a Band 7.

So sorry if this upsets the band wagon but it doesnt take a life time in the medical field to do this job.

Good sound reasoning and a logical approach with good inter- personal skills.

Billy

Well said bcarlisle
And i would like to see anybody, whether staight from college with a Clinical Technology degree or not, do the job from day one. No matter what, everyone needs on the job training and nobody is deemed competent until they are trained on and familiar with specific kit (and thats law!)
And by the way, medical equipment (in my opinion) is nowhere near as complicated as Defence equipment and it never will be!
The body is a (fairly stable, predictable and understood) machine. The enemy isn't.
Topper

Re: Mr Ling

The MOD individuals are employed in the biomedical engineering field are called MDSS - they only way Navy/Army/RAF MDSS are allowed on the course is if they come from medical engineering background.

Getting funding from the MOD is a bit of a nightmare, the MOD provide enhanced learning credits (£6000) which can be used for further education and can be used up to 10 years after leaving the forces, however recently people leaving the forces have had to use some/most of this money to offset the cost of any resettlement activity that they choose to do.

What people leaving the forces have found is that certified resettlement providers i.e. the private sector have put up their costs as they know we have enhanced learning credits. You get something in one hand and its taken out the other.

An example of this: a course in Aldershot has went up from just under £1000 to just over £1800 in one go.

Yes I'm an exavionics technician (RAF) and I just just carn't seem to get my head round this medical equipment game at all.

First I start off as MTO 2 then MTO3 then MTO4(band7)

It makes you wonder how much further I can bluff my way doesn't it?

I guess VRCT is not for you because you've managed to progress without it Paul? Is that a fair comment? Would you consider VRCT?

Incidentally I was wondering why VRCT was not for you Billy? Is it the same reason as (I'm assuming) Paul's is?

Re darth welder

What I found leaving the forces was no money in the station budget so 'you cant have any for training' was the chief clerks words. So I ended up coming back as a civvie on more money and no Guards (Happy days).

Came straight to this job did some equipment training and hey presto here we are today. As for you Paul, good on you I must learn how to bluff.

So RJL you felt my original comments were an attack on you personally and not on the system. You have identified yourself without any help from me but in the process actually attacked me for your own gratification, as for bullying please examine your own tactic as follows
Quote "In fact YOU, TIM, posted all of these comments and, in fact, YOU are the person who started posting nonsense like this. He's still not come up with any arguments relating to the VRCT thread only insults all the way!" you like shouting don't you, "get a life" and welcome to the real world and take a good look a mirror.
Also from your quote you have obviously decided that costs "financially and morally " are not worthy of debate! You appear to be full of your own importance. I have met a few used car salesman in my long career in the NHS I didn't expect to meet one here. I am not sold on your opinions either.

Re Richard

No, I just feel it is an other area of buerocracy that I am going to have to wade through to get anything done. Its another meeting that someone will have to attend.

At the end of the day if it comes in I will tackle the issue (probably head on).

We are better of letting HR do their job, we interveiw for the post. At the end of the day the person you employ has to be able to work as part of the team, and I dont think this registration will do me any good.

Billy

Well it looks like I'll have to post my VRCT certificate back to Mr Methven then.

Well there you go it doesn't matter what the background you come from it is possible to make it in this mine field I did and I'm NOT from the MOD or Med Physics!!!, as for VRCT if you meet the criteria and you as a person feel that this is the way forward for you then thats fine at the end of the day this is NOT a dictorial state yet is it?? I for one am in VRCT as I felt it was the way forward for me.

You keep naming me in your attacks - so what other way can I interpret it? I can't have an opinion but you can is that it? You're at it again insulting me for no reason! When is it going to stop? Please stop harrassing me.

Please ...lets keep this debate as a debate. I may have to appoint a speaker to control the 'nays' to the left and the 'ayes' to the right. quiet please....

Wasn't the last speaker pushed - or did he leave?

When the clinical scientists had their voluntary register set up I remember speaking to a guy in Scotland who did not join. It did not stop him working, and he could have joined the register under the 'grandfather clause'. i.e. if you are doing the job - you have nothing to prove. He told me a short story: While working in Scotland he applied for and was offerred a job at a nearby Hospital. He then declined the job. After 18 months the job came up again, this time he was not accepted on the grounds of not being registered. The DoH had taken over the register in the mean time. He regretted not joining the register.

For £10, it is a risk not worth taking. I have advised all our technicians to join. It is their choice.

Been following this with interest but can’t type fast enough to respond when I really want to. However, in for a penny…..

Maybe I’m taking a very simplistic view, but I really don’t see the problem with registration/regulation. If you’re in a qualifying post, what’s the problem? If you’re not in a qualifying post, again, what’s the problem? It’s not going to affect you.

As it stands we are one of the few groups who are not regulated. You can’t be a plumber/electrician/gas fitter without being suitably qualified and registered. So what does that make us? A bunch of ‘cowboys’? (no offence intended to ranch-workers etc)

If regulation means that your job title and hence function is protected, meaning that you can’t be replaced by a lesser qualified (experiential and/or academically) person on lower pay, is this not a good thing?

To me, paying VRCT registration fees to avoid higher initial HPC registration fees, is a bit like paying to protect your no-claims on car/home insurance. You hope it doesn’t happen, but you pay out just in case because the resultant price hike post-claim is exhorbitant and lasts for years (even if it is not your fault!).

The subject of Union membership has also been raised. If you are a member (I am) the reality is you get very little for your money (over £100 pa). How many really question the value of Union fees? Not too many, I suspect.

As a point of interest, if it was going the other way i.e. de-regulating, would there be such an outcry I wonder?

Who would want to be responsible for controlling MPs at the HP... I think that we are far more dignified here. Lets not get like those at the HP, where the debate often ends up becoming a farce.

Richard,

Quote: I guess VRCT is not for you because...

I havn't gone quite that far have I? Yes I have questioned what tangible benifits state regulation have (for me) and I have certainly questioned how far membership costs will rise. (because they will, certainly no one is challenging this)

I recieved (In the RAF) an excellent basic training which has instilled in me self regulation. I constantly self review my own engineering practices and training needs and act accordingly. These basics have translated into a strong sense of duty of care to any patients and staff who come into contact with any kit I've had my mitts in.

So other technicians may need regulation, but I've yet to be convinced that I do.

Best wishes

Paul.

I can't understand why nobody has questioned me on the Registrants i have mentioned in previous posts. No disrespect to them and i certainly will not identify them or their role, but they might as well be Macdonalds waiters as regards their relevance to VRCT or the role of a CT, yet they are members. I guess i am therefore questioning/provoking debate about the integrity/validity of the VRCT and any subsequent official Regulation. Is VRCT advocating these individuals are fit to practice (as CT's)?
Regarding a previous response where "if Regulation comes in, not all members of VRCT will be required to register with the HPC" if they are not operating within the Scope of Practice, then please explain why you have been happy to take their money over the last few years!
By the way, i'm pretty certain that VRCT is much more than £10, £35-£55 rings a bell but funny nobody else has felt compelled to point out this error... eh VRCT and their proponents?

Was'nt the last Speaker female, Betty Boothroyd?

Topper VRCT fee's still stand at a tenner (thank goodness for now) it could be worse and be the same as nurses have to pay ie £90 I think? please correct if I'm wrong!

On more lump of coal for the fire - one thing about being registered - will the NHS actually check, there has been a few (inverted coma's) case's recently of doctors,surgeons and a few others not even qualified in the jobs they are in.

I'm off to work in Gibraltar in a few weeks, what a place, first time i was there some nurses were found smoking in the SCBU - that's patient care for you!

DW - When the going gets tough, get a contractor in!

Re Techman

As for the gas fitter regulation (corgi) that didnt stop the fitter that put the gas fire in my house from not tightening the connection. Registration didnt sort that. (A check by someone else might have worked).

As for the higher charge when the HPC get hold of it, well what guarantee do you have that you wont have paid all those years to the VRCT only to be told tough, you have to pay the HPC as they dont recognise VRCT. Have you a solicitor proof contract that states the payment will carry on at the present amount.

Billy

Hi all by the way I am ex RAF (LFittNI) with many many years experience in electronics and Navigation Systems. Even in the 70's the military technology and equipment was far superior to the majority of healthcare equipment in use today. How may Nuclear Bombs have dropped on your house?... no errors there then! The training Service personnel receive is far superior to any training given to Technicians in the NHS currently as far as I have seen in my long career to date. Maybe this would explain why the Ex-Service Technician members of the NHS are able to apply themselves to Technologist work and so quickly too! Maybe all healthcare Technicians and Technologists could get their training and acreditation from the Services... now that makes more sense to me. A register proves nothing except one thing they have you by the b**ls and of course the expense.... imagine charging all the Service Men and Women to be allowed to perform their duties. As for the NHS my Military service training, basic and advanced has helped me all the way in my 26+ years working in the NHS I have what is known as transferable skills. Wow!

Quote:

Topper VRCT fee's still stand at a tenner (thank goodness for now) it could be worse and be the same as nurses have to pay ie £90 I think? please correct if I'm wrong!

Technicians £10 (voluntatry)

Nurses £90 (Compulsory)

Spot the difference Noddy!!

Best wishes

Paul

VRCT is £30.00 (since August 2007)
VRC is £45.00 Initial application then £25.00 for renewal.

Note: VRC is the Voluntary Registration Council (google it)

I would expect a statutory Register to charge all Registrants the same whether on VRCT or not eg. if you renew your VRCT (£30) and a couple of months later the "actual" Register goes live, you would sill pay the full amount.
i think it naive and misleading to see VRCT as a "no claims protection" against the full price of statutory Regulation.

John

Quote:For £10, it is a risk not worth taking. I have advised all our technicians to join. It is their choice.

Agreed it's not a risk worth taking, but isn't this a case of serving a bureaucratic requirement with no tangible benefit on the shop floor?

Best wishes

Paul

Not suggesting that HPC won't be more, it almost certainly will be. Just alluding to the likelihood that registering with HPC, when it happens, may cost a lot more than registering now with VRCT. Always assuming that, as mooted, once on VRCT then transfer to HPC will be automatic. May be totally wrong, time will tell.

Ultimately, it come down to choice (at the moment). Either join/stay with VRCT or don't.

Incidentally I think my last renewal was still £10.

VRCT Application / reapplication £30
Annual renewal £10
It appears that VRCT and VRC whilst being seperate entities are claiming the same goal, see their website(www.vrcouncil.org)
Are they competing? Clarification anybody?
Topper

In a nutshell, as far as I understand it, a number of other "aspirant" groups in the NHS are being included on voluntary registers since they aspire to obtain "professional status". Same goal - different parts of the HPC register, i.e. different scopes of practice in different professional groups.

Each group is affiliated with a professional body, e.g. IPEM, and a register of individuals on each of the sections of the voluntary register(s) are being maintained by organisations such as VRCT.

The transition to HPC is then apparently going to be made from the voluntary registers onto the HPC register. Meanwhile each group supports maintenance of the register they're included on, financially, and the professional institution or association, e.g. VRC, VRCT, administers this, I believe.

VRC supports "Healthcare Sciences" the VRCT supports "Clinical Technology" - this is not just an issue that's been thrust upon us - a number of traditinally related, non-professional groups, e.g. physiologists (ECG, EEG, Critical Care Technologists, etc, etc), are also going for professional regulation.

I’ll never forget first day at pit. ‘we walked hame 43 miles through t’snow in ars bare feet’

Gents,

I have followed this discussion with interest, and get a sense of déjà vu.

Richard, by the number of people you have offended on this forum, I think you fail to grasp how many people have come into biomedical engineering from a different career.

1. I know it is difficult for somebody who has had to work hard and start at the bottom and work their way up, to then see ‘outsiders’ join at a similar grade. These skilled people have honed their skills and started at the bottom and worked their way up in a different industry. – It is known as skill transfer.
Believe it or not, other industries suffer the same issues of new people joining from another sphere at the same salary, it is not unique to the NHS.
2. The NHS doesn’t train its technicians from scratch, as far as I am aware, at least not in large numbers. Therefore it must get them from ‘somewhere else’.
3. I'm sure those that conceived VRCT, had good intentions, but it being hijacked by those who wish to put a stop to this and effectively have a closed shop.
4. The IET, IPEM etc, under the Engineering council set a standard for IEng. The standards for VRCT are lower than this. A graduate with 3 years experience in the medical profession (gained at university!!!!) can join VRCT the day they graduate. They are only eligible to apply for Eng Tech at this stage, They require 3 years industrial experience i.e further training from that at university to be eligible to apply for IEng. So do not try for one minute to attempt to convince me that VRCT sets the standards.
5. Standards of training and service must be set by local management. They should identify skills gaps and ensure the appropriate training is taken. It makes more sense to have a total quality system in place and at minimum Eng Tech, rather than have the edibility to join VRCT as a benchmark for competence.
6. VRCT will not stop those determined to cause harm from doing so. It only means they will be struck off. This is in every case I have heard of. The ‘relevant body’ only acts on a guilty verdict.


I expect you will be your usual self Richard in your response. We had a similar discussion on line over two years ago. The result of which if I remember correctly the moderator removed some of your posts and asked for you to apologise to the forum.

I joined VRCT, not because I agree, but I am pragmatic enough to see the direction it will take. I urge those not in the ‘club’ to seriously think about it. If VRCT get their way, you will not be allowed in their playing field, as it is their ball.

Regards
Colin

Hide of a Rhino me!

If you want to play the game, you need players ... not just the ball!

But as my good friend Richard has delicately pointed out, VRCT does not directly affect me. However, I do care about the "profession", and (contrary to your urging Colin), myself urge everyone not just to follow the herd and join!

Or put another way, let "them" stand in the middle of their field, with their ball, waiting for the teams to turn up. Meanwhile, we'll all be happily kicking about in the field over the back.

Geoff (the Ultimate Outsider, Out in Left Field)

All,

I have also been following this string with some interest.

If this were to succeed it would need a clearly defined engineering framework, which in my opinion already basically exists - Eng Tech, IEng and CEng. Start standard in clinical technology in my view could be pitched at say Eng Tech and build on previous experience, competence and knowledge and not having to look at devising degree courses - but look at equipment familiarisation and how it functions wrt the clinical application, conduct within a clinical environment and ways of achieving equipment proficiency during an initial phase/probationary period. This would also have the advantage of bringing in a degree of skill transfer to the profession, whilst developing functional competence.

I have no doubt that if and when the HPC get involved that they will consult very thoroughly before setting their standards of education and training.

The VRCT is a start in the right direction, and lest we forget that other engineering institutions already have a stake in this and would appear to be being involved.

Raising the game can't be such a bad thing can it? Lets look at what talent already exists.

Cheers

Yes, the framework does already exist (so why tinker with it?). And, again yes, Tech Eng is about right (and that is the case now, too).

We're all in favour of "raising the game", I should imagine. But how is the VRCT going to do that (or, in fact, have any positive impact at all)?

By the way, can I ask:- do you consider yourself to be a "Clinical Technologist", Fordy?

Nope, engineer first clinical technologist second, thats the entry route for me into this world.
Maybe another analysis of the main driver of why clinical technologists need to be registered and the answer probably lies with the arguement of the potential to harm patients/ entering into the realms of patient confidentiality/ethics and no doubt litigation. It is a bit like looking into the aircraft world where flight safety is paramount - is this not the same arguement when dealing with patients? There are criteria and integrity issues when dealing with aircraft and in my opinion this is no different to maintaining the safety of patients - may be this area needs more refining and where credibility can be enhanced?

Cheers

During my long years in this game, the "similarity to aircraft maintenance" issue has often been cited, but usually dismissed, I'm afraid (but let's not start another fracas).

My closing question is this:- if patients need all this "protection" (and, again, I fail to see what difference the VRCT can possibly make there, either) how have people like me "got away with it" for the last 34 years?

Exactly. Maybe the VRCT aim is to revise this area to provide some technical assurance to the clinicians we support, but it won't be the VRCTs job to make the change it will be who ever is in the chair at the front to evolve, and maybe the VRCT has begun the road to providing some standard direction in which to operate.

Well, I was going to call it a day, but I can't just let that one pass!

Have the clinicians we support had such a bad deal, then?

Who are the VRCT? What wonderful new ideas are they promoting? Are you (they) saying that we're doing it all wrong, and have been doing it wrong all these years? Are you (they) saying that those of us who basically pioneered this "profession" are just a bunch of old ******* (fill in whatever word you like to use)?

So that's it ... they're right, and we're wrong?

The VRCT hasn't began any road. And you're dead right about one thing there, Fordy, it won't be the VRCT gang or their like out in front. As I said yesterday:- Lead, follow ... or get out of the way!

In my opinion this is all about moving forward utilising what you pioneers have achieved. I can see that resistance to change is a factor in all this and although you may have been doing it right, how about making it better?

I had a technician once who resisted change, unfortunate for him I didn't get out the way.

Anyway signing off

Thanks for your input - your points have been taken. Cheers

Actually, Col, I think you're being a bit constructive with the truth there since I remember your comments were pretty offensive and were deleted (as well). For the record I certainly was not asked to apologise to anybody but I did, anyhow, off my own back.


Ho-hum.....

It is apparent after two years that it has really bothered you and I think it is a shame that you feel the need to make it personal and blame your problem with this entirely upon me - it's convenient to bring it up again, obviously.

If you're just taking the oportunity to make a valid point fair enough but if it's just to humiliate and win an argument that you weren't really in a position to discuss properly or very knowledgeable about, at the time, then that's a bit sad really. And that's coming from a sad bloke like me....

Anyhow I'm not going to argue - as you said, Col, the argument remains the same and now we have AFC and KSF, as predicted, and still we have VRCT and the prospect of HPC to come, eh?

What it means is that if my predictions of the detail are correct that it will be increasingly difficult to get into the profession and to get the grades unless individuals are "fully qualified". What it means is new-entrants will have to get their books outand not just "rest on their laurels".

Just as a bit of background there are individuals in this game, such as those in IPEM, IET, VRCT, etc, that look at the bigger picture spending their own time and making the effort, in and outside of work, to improve our lot as they see it. Without discussion then they will never know about issues like this.

I try to help individuals where I can, irrespective of their prior background. I do put my money where my mouth is and have become involved in a small way as an IPEM training moderator examining trainees basic skills, etc. I don't just talk it. There are "fast-track" vocational schemes out there.

In fact I must chase up my expense claim for the £300 I've laid out so far over the last year to do this, for accommodation, travel, etc. The 12 months completing a Diploma in Delivering Learning, plus the week or so of my own time writing the assessements, practical, viva, etc, plus the week of my own time spent doing them, etc, etc.

I guess I'm just one of those people "looking to improve the lot of the "profession", pull it up by the bootstraps, and assist where they can" in my own small way. I don't see much of this reflected in this thread - disappointing.

I was offered a position on the VRCT panel a couple of years ago and invited to sit in on a session before I made a decision - but I was asked by Jim Methven in a PM, outlining the offer, to keep quiet about it if I decided against it.

I didn't take up the offer. Since I don't owe Jim Methven anything and I don't intend to post on this or any other site again I thought I'd mention it.

I didn't consider this offer nor any of the offers I have had, to act as "expert" for companies and sit on panels, etc, because I like to stay totally independent and air my views - whether they are unpopular or not.

I guess my posts on EBME has encouraged them to ask me? So they're not considered "garbage-in-garbage-out" by everybody then.

Finally before I shuffle-off; My views are that we actually need individuals from a wide range of backgrounds with wide-ranging skills. That's a benefit. As I said two years ago there's no problem with anyone coming into any profession from elsewhere.

They just can't expect to come in at the working grade from day one without having to meet the requirements to do so in a regulated profession. We can't just compromise everybody else already in post for the sake of new-starters.

To achieve this there must be specialist training, whether that be fast-track, whatever, as I've suggested previously for those coming in skilled from the forces for example.

It's been convenient to "hit me" with accusations of bias against ex-forces which is totally untrue but it is a relevant issue in need of discussion. If you don't raise the issues and argue the points then no-one in positions to make changes to the VRCT or HPC system will even know about them.

Tim Cottles comments I found particularly offensive since they came from nowhere and have absolutely nothing to do with the issues except to try to humiliate and denegrate the arguments and me personally I might add. Nasty - and to say I'm full of my own importance after his last posting - hah!

I think people fail to see that as the largest employer in Europe, if not the world, that the NHS requirements, thus HPC legislation, will always tend to dominate the arguments, irrespective of the engineering aspects of the profession and our needs.

What we would like to see and what we will get will be a compromise that we will have little influence of, in my opinion, but at least we'll stay around a bit longer to push things further along as "professionals". Some change needs to take place and relatively soon.

I didn't set VRCT up, I'm wary of HPC regulation because it does have drawbacks, I don't agree with all aspects of it, and as I've posted many times before, at length, I take a very pragmatic approach to VRCT and HPC.

I do believe the intention is to roll AFC, KSF, HPC together for professions in the NHS - thus try to relate grades to competences, training and regulation. This is the NHS "plan" and it's unlikely you or I are going to prevent this.

Richard Ling BEng(Hons) MSc MIEE IIPEM

"So long and thanks for all the fish"!

I'll give it a month, 2 at tops.

Yeah, but it was buried in the small print! Ha, ha.

And ... beware the invisible man!

Meanwhile, 14 pages and counting ... could this turn out to be the longest ever thread? Just goes to show how high feelings run on this issue, I 'spose.

Geoff Hannis said..."Meanwhile, 14 pages and counting ... could this turn out to be the longest ever thread?"

Sorry, sunshine - have a look at "Jokes 2 (Son of Jokes)" in "Out of Hours". It's up to page 18, and I reckon half of that is me!!! AND there's still more to come!

Naitch fae Embra

I have been catching up on this thread since logging off yesterday:

Colin - makes very valid points that people do come into the medical engineering world from other trades, if a person has the technical ability then why not employ him.

Geoff - i think we could get at least 20 pages on this!

DW - Still not a real welder!

Sorry, Naitch, but frivolity like that doesn't count, I'm afraid. If we really wanted to fill up Huw's hard-drives, we could cut-and-paste all day, could we not?

Darth ... can anyone tell me the name of anyone who hasn't come into biomed from some other trade? And, while we're at it (and filling up the pages), why don't we start a list of all the feeder trades? Here's the first one:-

1) REME ECE (Control Equipment Technician) used to working on battle tanks, weapon systems, field gun equipment etc.

Richard will not be making any more posts. He's asked me to delete his membership.

So, back to the VRCT website please

2) Colour Television Field Service Engineer ( Visionhire )
Great Job but the Japaneses Sets reliability killed the Rental TV Market.

I have the following in my workshop:

3) REME Instrument Tech - All types of optical equipment.

4) REME Radar Tech - Mortor tracking systems, Rapier and a few other bits.

5) Royal Scots Dragoon Guards Challenger Driver - Self Explanatory!

Thank goodness I do not have any REME Tels techs, they are generally hard work! The remainder here are all ECES, however we do have a suspect ECE i.e. he has not done a Med Man in BATUS, so we are not sure if he is a real ECE (The jury is stll out on his ECE credability).

Darth Welder (ECE AFV)

Darth

Please for us civvy types what do the acronyms mean, ECE BATUS etc.

6)Myself ex communications engineering,Racal,Eddystone, followed by lab equipment field service both NHS and Industry.

That's No.6, then.

ECE : see my previous post.
BATUS : never mind (there's a million more, so don't encourage them)!

7) My previous job was a transmitter engineer for the BBC.

No.7.

1. Pulling heads off slaughtered chickens.
2. Avionics Mechanic Tornado F3's
3. Avionics Mechanic Puma & Chinook helicopters (Northern Ireland)
4. Avionics Technician Skyshadow ECM (elecrtronic countermeasures)
5. This!

Thanks Geoff I missed that.

Just to be safe, a few acronym's & military terms:

BATUS - British Army Training Unit Suffield.
MBT - Main Battle Tank.
AFV - Armoured Fighting Vehicle.
REMF - Rear Echelon (You can Guess the rest).
TEWT - Tactical exercise with troops.
OC - Officer Commanding.
CO - Commanding Officer.
IC - In Charge.
BOB - Bird or Bloke (Generally used to desribe ladies who have lady friends).
NAFFI - Navy Army Air Force Institute - a place of fine ale!
APOD - Air Point of Departure (The best place in the world after 6 months in a sandy place)
Slappers Ball - the club/pub in a garrison area where you meet local ladies.
BOBFOC - Body of Baywatch face of Crimewatch (Used at NAAFI Break on a Monday morning to discribe the young or not so young Frau you pulled on a Friday or Saturday night at the local slappers ball).
GU MED - Where you go on Tuesday Morning after being at the local slappers ball at the weekend.

There are lots more - but i am getting boring!

DW -

Indeed ... and you only got two wrong! For anybody really interested in this stuff, there are plenty of websites out there. Like this one, for instance.

Sorry to hear that RJL has gone I spent all last night crying, I have enough salt now to keep me going for years I can see a contract on the horizon with Saxa. I am a nice guy really all my friends will tell you that, but I will stick up for myself when I am insulted. I would encourage any one to do the same, I only say sorry and mean it when I am in the wrong.

Seriousley though, the point I was initially making when I joined this forum topic in around about sort of way ....is that there is room for people with transferable skills they should not be despised and they should definately be embraced in the NHS, just think of the costs saved in training them, as I have said I am one of those Ex-Service types and I needed a job when I finished serving my Country, In fact I was an apprentice Electrical Welding Engineer when I first left school and look where I am now. There have been the pioneers in all trades where there was nothing no certificates,just hard slog. Now we have one or two, three....and on trades and experts. I recognise the skills in front of me in practice not just on a sheet of paper. I am not saying do not aim to attain certificates but also aim for your own acheivements in a practical manner. I know a mathematician in westminster who can't add up so much for certificates, on their own they are worthless in my opinnion. Yes raise the standards but don't get hijacked in the process. Thank you all for an entertaining thread it is clear there are loads of us with appropriate skills which we can still use
cheers
Tim AKA "the Crippler"

I never thought that I would directly post upon these shores again so soon.

To do so may be questionable, detrimental to my civil liberties and adversely affect my chances of a date tonight.

However, I feel I can safely contribute , without harm to me or ebme, here goes ,over the last few days talking with the following cross section of folk.

Please be informed of the following:-

The talkers

16KHS techs and me
3 Scottish NHS techs
2 OEM instructors.
3 NHS EBME managers
1 Company MD
2 Healthcare managers private sector
1 Procurement manager private Sector
2 Procurement managers NHS
2 Visiting NHS techs
1 Retired NHS tech
3 Estates and facilities managers
1 Greybeard

Summary thus:-

We found the site VRCT informative and appreciated the effort, professionalism and expertise of those involved in its development.

The topic of the site was a subject of much honest debate

Becoming a clinical engineering technologist or not, being employed in our NHS or not, the use a protective title or not, gaining a relevant qualification , being regulated in our jobs

All very emotional matters we thought, like most we love our jobs, so these matters matter.

Some individuals felt they did not matter those proposing VRCT

Some thought VRCT did not matter at all.

Generally it was thought that registration process has taken so long that by the time it became mandatory the NHS might have changed so much that it may not be relevant.

A lot that deliver services of a highly specialist or specific nature into the NHS (services that those on the register are often not able or qualified to undertake according to HTM or SHTM) felt the register was strange as they in a lot of cases do not qualify for VRCT.
Some of these quite liked the idea of registration and a slot in the system for service engineers etc they felt should be provided for those that wished to be included.

Some asked will taxpayers eventually be paying droves of acedemics a small fortune to test equipment with automatic testers if in the future good hands on techs are excluded from practice.

Some pondered the legality of proposals and would folk leave to join other areas of engineering if pushed out in some way

The feedback regarding VRCT seemed to depend entirely on who you ask.

Darren

A little story about regulation and certification.

Many years ago as the "electronics expert" and general all-round “good egg” in the Med Eng Dept. I was approached by the Facilities Director (our boss at the time) to set up the Trust’s PAT testing regime.

Obviously I found out as much as I could discussed at length all the ins and outs with the Works Electricians who would be doing the testing, test equipment manufacturers and software suppliers.

Then I actually did the job for a short time to ensure the processes worked.

Apart from an electrician almost shutting the kitchens because every other item failed the tests, everything went well.

The Local Tech College contacted me and I was questioned over all the various aspects of the process which I happily answered in the interest of cooperation etc.

Recently I was talking to a gentleman who runs a small business PAT testing, he told me that a certificate proving you had received training was now required before you could do this type of work. I said “oh where did you get your training”, his reply was “at the Local Tech”.

Therefore if I wanted to take up PAT testing I would have to get a certificate from a place that based a lot of the course on what I had told them some years earlier. (And no I do not want to do PAT testing I get bored easily).

Lee

Careful now Darren, I,m sure your Nemesis is watching !!! Hows the Litigation by the way !!! Ha Ha.

Harking back to previous employment BEFORE falling into EBME...

8A) ELECTRONIC DEVELOPMENT TEST ENGINEER - testing Special-to-Type Test Equipment for radar gear for Lynx (helicopter), Sea Harrier and Tornado F3 aircraft with Ferranti in Edinburgh (great job),

8B) TEST ENGINEER - production testing of Telecoms surveillance gear with Agilent at South Queensferry (at southern end of the Forth Railway Bridge). A bl##dy awful job with a bl##dy awful firm,

8C) A.T.E. SUPPORT ENGINEER on Electronic Warfare units for the Eurofighter with BAE Systems at Stanmore, North London.

At present, this is my 4th stint as an EBME engineer.

Now now Tony

It was my fault and I was out of order, I appologise in public to Mr Ling for this, to be fair to him he went as far as to say this was not required or wanted.

Thank you for that RJL

ebme was threatened with that course of action too because of me.

You know Tony in my defence I am from Hartlepool and have not been well lately, no excuse really, I have to live with my actions and the shame on a daily basis.

The following post ending contains material intented to be funny to the reader

just because on discharge from the MOD I was informed I could get away it, actually attempting such a thing nowadays can not be condoned my solicitor informs me.

Still learning

Darren

All I can say (as someone who follows this forum a fair bit) is that I've never noticed whatever it was you were supposed to have said to offend, DM.

I find that people in Modern Britain are all too ready to take offence in general. I my opinion, that's probably because, being too wrapped up in their own self-importance, they never take the time to consider the other fellow's point of view (it's always "what I want", "how I feel", etc.). A nation of wallys.

If people engage in conversations on a public forum, they must expect a bit of give and take. Without the banter, this site would be very dull indeed! Keep learning, Darren, you're one of the best, Mate. You see, as I don't come from Hartlepool, I've got nothing against monkeys (cheeky or otherwise)!

I do believe, however, that things have been said on this forum that would probably not be said face-to-face. That's the rule that I adopt myself (and I would recommend it to others):- if you've got the balls to say it directly to the guy if and when you meet him ... then fair enough, go ahead and post. But if you haven't, then keep your trap shut (or else you might regret it when you do meet)!

Personally, I doubt that I would be "terribly upset" (or "disgusted", to use a word much over-used by low-life, and in the media) by anything posted on this forum. But, that's probably because I don't have much of an ego, but am all in favour of simple traditional values like "do as be done by", and "live, and let live". Frankly, some people need to chill out and get a life (as my son, one of the Nintendo Generation, would no doubt advise).

Be humble ... but be happy!

...and back to the topic, please

This topic may have dribbled out now, Huw, I'm afraid (better make that I hope)!

.

.

Come on, we can make it past Naitch for the longest thread - unless Huw stops us.
But if you count the number of times all this topic has been repeated it holds the record by a long way.
Why do we keep repeating this? Because there has been official guidance and resolution on the full RCT promissed for a long time and no resolution.
Robert

I think we have are at the end of this discussion until someone brings us a step closer to official registration! I have been hearing about registration for roughly 7 years and i don't think we are any further down the line since then.

DW - Staying on the Dark Side of the Medical Engineering world.

Dark Side? I thought you worked in (for) the army! I'm sorry, Mate, but on this forum the term "Dark Side" is reserved for those of us lurking in the murky waters of used equipment (ie, very firmly in the so-called "private sector")!

Perhaps you need to trademeark it Geoff DarkSide™

I would suspect this debate has shifted up a gear over the last few days only now that we finally have more information about VRCT. Maybe this is why VRCT promoters are suprised and in some cases offended by this sudden reaction. It was in no way a personal attack on anyone or group and i see no validity in the racial accusations made.
I think a lot of good has come out of this debate because there are many of us who were/are ill informed and i would guess many of those have joined VRCT (just in case) without hearing both sides of the coin. At least now many can make a more informed choice and that any individual will realise they are not alone in their opinion for or against Regulation. I personally crave as much information as possible because although i am against Regulation and VRCT (for reasons i have outlined), it still has the potential to affect me. So keep it coming!
Topper

Geoff - please accept my appology if i have caused offence, I now better know.

All the Best

DW

May the Force be with you!

Maybe as EBME techs we should adopt the Yin Yang symbol as our logo?

Geoff have a listen to Obi Wan Kenobi Calls Changing Rooms ! I think it will amuse you!

Yes, the Force is indeed strong with Lucy (not to mention Huw)!


That's a good idea, Mate. It's as good a symbol as any, I reckon.

That's all very well, Huw (I suppose), but now I see that all Richards' earlier posts are tagged:-

Mr R J Ling
Unregistered

... or even:-

Anonymous
Unregistered

And replies (from other posters) are tagged:- [Re: ]

As my good old jousting partner was so prolific a poster himself, I'm wondering if you can arrange things somewhat differently? This makes some threads look a bit ridiculous, unless you have the time to work it all out (ie, who is replying to who). Also we cannot review Richard's posts, as you can for other posters.

May I suggest that deletion of membership should not be permitted! If one of the gang simply wishes to stop coming on to the forum, and stop posting, then that's up to them!

Are you decided on this issue (or should we have a poll about it)?

I'm afraid what's done is done.
Membership is deleted the posts remain. That's the way it works.

I've not been asked to delete a membership before, but I saw no reason why I shouldn't. He asked, I said ok. No big deal.

I'm surprised there are anonymous posts - that should'nt have happened.

Speaking personally I am uncomfortable with the fact Richard has seen fit withdraw from the website. Taking part in a debate the result of which is someone withdrawing like this reflects on everyone taking part in it, not just Richard. It raises for me the question, of what quality was the debate in the first place?

In my opinion the site will be the poorer without his input, so I think he should be at least be invited to reconsider his decision.

Best wishes

Paul

And I second Paul's sentiments, in all respects!

I have to agree with Paul here.
Since I have been registered, Richard appears to have given a lot of help and factual advice to readers of the website. Ok sometimes his input and explanations can be a bit long, but his posts usually contain lots of factual info as well as his personal opinions and we are all entitled to them.
If the posts were based on quality I'm sure he would be near or at the top of the ratings.
I really hope that Richard reconsiders as I'm sure that the quality of his posts will be sorely missed.
Graham

Gentlemen, I did ask Richard to reconsider before removing his membership.

I also consider his input as extremely important.

He declined and asked me to remove all his details.

I also think Richard's input will be missed.

Lee

Me too.
Topper

Anybody knowledgable about VRC, SCCT or others?
Topper

Well you can’t turn your back for three weeks without all hell breaking loose? Looks like I missed all the fun.
It’s nice to see the VRCT going public after all this time. Now we know what we are dealing with. Still can’t find anything on their website to change my mind. All of the old concerns are still there: it is still Medical Physics-centric, lumps us in with non engineering clinical staff, does not facilitate different grades or responsibilities, will cause recruitment problems due to restrictive entry requirements, will create a “glass ceiling” restricting the salaries of senior engineers and managers and of course is totally irrelevant to non NHS engineers/ technicians.

I hope RJL is ok, I noticed that his last post was in the wee small hours. I must admit that he could be pretty acerbic if his views differed from your own but he and others should know when to draw a line under an argument and agree to differ. It is virtually (no pun intended) impossible to have a proper argument on an internet forum.

By the way we have: 1 ex-RAF tech, 2 ex-mining engineers (electrical), 1 ex-post office engineer and 1 ex-TV repairman amongst our staff. We have 1 who came through the MPPM training course in the 80's. Most of us were trained in house and as far as I know we haven't killed anyone yet.

Hey Bill ... where have you been?

There are are a lot of ex-RAF types about, plenty of ex-TV blokes too (usually very good at electronics). But MPPM? I thought I knew them all! What's that one, then?

From what I read all new technicians/engineers for band 5 and higher will have to take reconised traning IPEM post diploma course, in medical engineering I could be wrong!

Hi, Geoff

Just been sunning myself on "typical Canarian" beach and a bit of DIY, using up my annual leave.

As for MPPM, it was the Medical Physics and Physiological Measurement training course at ONC and HNC levels. Most of the students went on to work in ECG and PFU, who now are going through the registration process to be called Clinical Physiologists. MPPM was the VRCT of its day, it didn't work then and won't work now. The MPPM courses only lasted a few years due to lack of interest, I feel that the CT courses being developed now will suffer the same fate, not enough students to make it viable unless they are prepared to travel great distances.

Hiya,

Last I heard was that theres lots of IPEM training going on in Scotland for trainees. I know that official documents are bouncing around trusts up there relating to training if and when it becomes mandatory so their taking it seriously.

Cant decide wether this RJ Ling is some character making it all up or actually knows about this sort of stuff. Anyone know if hes a bit of a Walter Mitty character or what? Sounds too good to be true.

As others have said previously, Richard has given a lot of help and factual advice to readers of the website. You may or may not agree with his views and personal opinions, but we are all entitled to put them forward.

Again, as others have indicated, his contributions will be missed.

I don't know whether this will have any bearing on the discussion regarding VRCT, but there was an advert in yesterday's Sunday Times for 2 posts on the HPC Council.
At the end of the advert, it said that the HPC intended to reduce in size over the next 4 years!!?? Implying that it would not be representing the 13 groups that it currently does.

When the purse strings start getting tight, quango's are often the first to be shown the door! With any luck, it'll all just fade away!

Hiya,

VRCT will go the way of all the schemes that people get wise to. Waste of time and money for no benefit. Most who are on it have probably been brainwashed and frightened into it by others (no names but we know who). Good riddance. I say send back the certificates get a refund and save your money for a couple of pints and a few packet of crisps down the pub or something.

Wouldn't be in the job if I couldnt do it. Im not fooled by a few letters after a name - those sorts just love collecting certificates so VRCT probably looks more attractive to them. Probably have them all over the wall at work and stuff. When anyone asks i can tell them or show them what i can do - dont need paper to do that.

So, over 2 years later, the VRCT is still here... but regulation appears as far away as ever.

The "Regulation Update" part of the VRCT website hasn't been updated since 2007.

Various updates appear to have been pasted onto the homepage, although the most up to date mentions a series of meetings to be arranged at the end of 2009.... does anyone know if these actually took place, and whether there was any progress?

It appears we might be tied into the "Modernising Scientific Careers Programme" so presumeably this means no further movement until it completes in 2012?

Any updates welcome!

Keep your money in your pocket Robert. If you have to re-register at some time in the future you shouldn't have a problem. Adopt a watching brief until the waters clear.

Well, what else can you get for a tenner these days?