How should the workforce of the future be trained? How far will role development and skills mix go? What skills will radiographers need?
At the present time, UK radiography education, in common with other non-medical health disciplines, is largely delivered by the higher education (HE) sector. This encompasses pre-registration entry level programmes entirely, most of the post-registration and postgraduate offerings and most of the ‘non-professional’ level provision, ie the assistant level workforce. Some post-registration provision is delivered by the independent sector and there is a considerable amount of practice based, or in-house provision. For the assistant practitioner and support workforce, again there is some accredited practice based, or in-house training, and also some delivery by the further education (FE) sector.
As a general overview, both pre and post-registration education and training are, allegedly, related to workforce planning or developmental needs. In England, currently, this is manifested through a commissioning process, where pre-registration student numbers are contracted to higher education institutions (HEI) by strategic health authorities and, to some extent, post-registration numbers are also contracted in this way. This, however, is a generalisation since the arrangements for post-registration provision are by no means consistent across the country. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, arrangements follow a more conventional or academically focussed system.
It is the case then that HEIs offering radiography, may offer both diagnostic and therapeutic, will commonly offer a range of post-registration or postgraduate provision, and may offer provision for training the support level workforce1
. This scenario provides a number of
challenges in terms of delivering an appropriate product in a rapidly developing clinical landscape, whilst resourcing provision in an increasingly purchaser provider environment.
PARTNERSHIP, OR UNEASY BEDFELLOWS? In the wider world, it could be said that academic and professional elements produce
heis are unfamiliar with delivering programmes beneath undergraduate level
The future effectiveness and, indeed, relevance of imaging and radiotherapeutic professionals is at stake if education and training is unable to maintain alignment with professional needs. The situation warrants scrutiny at a time when natural evolutionary change seems to be accelerating significantly2,3,4
. So what does the future hold?
A BIT OF BACKGROUND The educational landscape for radiography has changed significantly in 25 years in terms of both entry to the profession and for post-qualifying education; from the centralised curriculum and assessment of the College of Radiographers, to an HE based system. Of course, this is not news to most in the profession, but the reason for mentioning it is to point out that, in real terms, it is not so long ago. There remains a high proportion of the profession who trained in that earlier period, who are still around, many of them highly influential in how the profession has evolved. The move to HE based provision, a consequence of the then government’s ‘Working Paper 10’5
, was a massive shift in the
culture of radiography education. In the 20 years since then, there has been accelerating change in the parameters within which radiographers work, affected by such diverse influences as technology, health policy, national demographics, and public expectation.
Of course, these factors have always played a part, but it may be argued that, in this period, the explosion in computer based technology and the critical influence of healthcare financing, to name but two, have transformed fundamentally aspects of how imaging and oncology services operate and are delivered. There is no reason to suspect that this rapid evolution will slow. Arguably, the changes of recent years, and the change yet to come, will transform educational arrangements for radiographers every bit as much as those of Working Paper 105
How do the various elements of the equation fit together? To start with let us examine how the education sector relates to the clinical environment.
49 2011
IMAGING & ONCOLOGY
.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72