LEADER
Institute of Biomedical Science is the professional body for biomedical scientists in the United Kingdom.
INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE 12 Coldbath Square London EC1R 5HL United Kingdom Tel: + 44 (0)20 7713 0214 Fax: + 44 (0)20 7837 9658 Email:
mail@ibms.org Web:
www.ibms.org
PRESIDENT Ian Sturdgess CSci FIBMS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE Jill Rodney
DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE Sarah May CSci FIBMS
EXECUTIVE HEAD OF EDUCATION Alan Wainwright CSci FIBMS
HEAD OF EXAMINATIONS Chris Ward
EXECUTIVE HEAD OF MARKETING AND MEMBERSHIP Lynda Rigby
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
education@ibms.org
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
cpd@ibms.org
EXAMINATIONS
examinations@ibms.org
MEMBERSHIP
mc@ibms.org
CHARTERED SCIENTIST
chartered@ibms.org
Devil in the detail
So much is happening at the moment that I am unsure quite where to begin. My apologies if what follows reads as a disjointed discourse on a series of issues, but ultimate comfort makes it worth staying the course.
I’ll start by addressing the old chestnut of pathology reconfiguration, and cannot let pass the opportunity to express my profound irritation at the categorisation of pathology as a back office service. I am, of course, referring to the recent letter from NHS Improvement (England) to Chairs and CEOs of trusts that required agreement to plans for the consolidation of pathology services by the end of July this year. Naively, I thought we had moved a little way beyond the hackneyed ‘back room’ label, thanks in part to the excellent work undertaken by Professor Jo Martin during her time as National Clinical Director of Pathology. I really thought that pathology might be starting to move out of the shadows and be recognised for its contribution to patient care and for its potential to deliver downstream savings by its targeted and appropriate use. How wrong could I be? No, we’re a back office service which is seen as a cost burden that needs to be delivered in a more cost-effective and -efficient manner. No obvious direct benefit to patient care then? Moving swiftly on. This week has seen
FOLLOW THE INSTITUTE
Join us on
facebook.com/biomedicalscience
Followus on twitter @BiomedScience
Find us on
the circulation of the final draft of the Level 6 Apprenticeship Standards for Healthcare Science Practitioners and Biomedical Scientists. I am grateful to Professor Shelley Heard for her willingness to take onboard the comments from the Institute that ensures biomedical scientists are recognised as professionals with a protected title and statutory regulation within healthcare science. I have often complained that our opinions are ignored but on this occasion the inclusion of our comments gives greater clarity to the standard, the individuals to whom it applies, and the differences in their regulatory pathways. I recognise that members will want much more information than I can provide here on the subject of apprenticeships and we will be running an article inThe Biomedical Scientist later in the year, but the important point is that this is not a threat to our future or identity. Apprenticeships are a central plank of government training strategy, and funding is being channelled in that direction while being withdrawn from other streams; where a trainee can be identified as an ‘apprentice’ there is the opportunity to seek funding. I have no doubt that in biomedical science
THE BIOMEDICAL SCIENTIST AUGUST 2016
this will be applicable to very few individuals, but for those employed and being trained while attending an Honours part-time release degree course that will lead to Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) regulation, it appears that this would fit the model for classification as an apprenticeship. I suspect that the devil will be in the detail, but this may be an important one to watch. Recently, I attended one of a number of
meetings being held around the UK to seek pre-consultation views on the reform of UK health professional regulation. All four UK home countries are committed to a reform of regulation, and a full public consultation is due to be launched in the autumn. The purpose of the meeting was to gauge the views and opinions of professionals and other key stakeholders ahead of the consultation launch, which will be seeking support for simplification of the regulatory processes, greater consistency across different regulators, and to give them greater autonomy. It is clear that this will be a highly significant consultation which will determine not just the future shape of the regulators but also the professions they regulate, the aspirant professions seeking regulated status, and the processes by which patient safety is protected. Of particular interest is the issue of fitness to practise cases, which account for up to 60% of the expenditure of some regulators. It is apparent that there is a desire for subtle change to the role of the regulator which will see less focus on poor performance – this should be addressed by the employer, where possible – and more on delivering improvements. Once again, the devil will be in the detail, but we will be sure to give a full response on behalf of our profession when the time comes. Finally, I guess our morning coffee will
no longer be accompanied by a nice crisp croissant, but instead we will rediscover the joys of a Chelsea bun or an Eccles cake. Plus ça change...
Sarah May Deputy Chief Executive
395
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