Dear Registrant

The policy of the VRCT Management Panel is to keep registrants informed of activities and progress which have an impact on the register. The following items fall into this category:

• Accredited Voluntary Register (AVR) status: At its March meeting, the VRCT Management Panel agreed to make a direct application to the Professional Standards Authority for the VRCT to become an AVR. We will keep you informed of progress towards this goal.
• Member bodies of the Management Panel: We are pleased to announce that IHEEM (Institute of Healthcare Engineering & Estate Management) has agreed to join the management panel. This brings the number of partner bodies back to three after IET decided that technologist registration was not part of their remit and are no longer involved. Although the major part of IHEEM’s interests is in Estates Management, their membership does include a large number of technologists, particularly in the area of Clinical Engineering.
• Certificates: There has been a certain amount of concern regarding the decision to discontinue the annual issuing of registration certificates. Although most registers do not issue certificates, the panel do appreciate these concerns. The panel wish to resolve this problem and the most likely route will be to issue a single certificate to all registrants stating the initial date of registration with an instruction that interested parties should check the register entries to confirm that registration is still valid.We would be interested to hear your views about this – please emailoffice@ipem.ac.ukwith your thoughts.
• Routes to registration: With the establishment of the Modernising Scientific Careers Practitioner Training Programme (PTP), the VRCT Panel has agreed to accept those completing appropriate accredited PTP degrees onto the register. Although we believe the IPEM and ART training programmes are more stringent than the PTP degrees, as these degrees are the Department of Health training route there is little choice but to accept them.
• Equivalence: Equivalence routes onto the register are a key issue to the panel. A project is underway to allow potential registrants to demonstrate equivalence to the PTP degree appropriate to their profession. The applicant would need an equivalent to the basic VRCT academic requirement and then would need to go through the process of matching experience and training to the PTP curriculum. The VRCT is currently looking for volunteers to pilot the process and if you have a suitable candidate the IPEM office would be interested to hear from you.
• CPD: In the last update I highlighted the fact that carrying out CPD is a requirement of all registers including the VRCT and random audits of CPD records will start in 2015. I repeat this again, as it is vital that all registrants are prepared for audit and it makes good sense to record CPD as it happens rather than wait until the information is needed. Forms are available on the IPEM website which can be used to maintain these records.
• Survey re technologists and radiographers: The Society of Radiographers, in consultation with IPEM, has commissioned the University of West of England (UWE) to consult this workforce to explore equivalence between Technologists and Radiographers, aiming to ensure they are accorded the same professional standing when undertaking the same roles in nuclear medicine. This has been a particular problem for many departments since Radiographers are statutorily registered whereas the Technologist register is currently voluntary. In addition it is intended that will this help to define the role of Nuclear Medicine Practitioner (effectively an umbrella term for Radiographer and Technologist roles) with a view to influencing future training and development requirements. To complete the survey, use this link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/154yZ5dADkYCeF8qL-n9DZLpAL4r4tBo0emOqJuVyma8/viewform?usp=send_form
• Closing date is 16 June 2014.

Andy Mosson

VRCT Registrar

May 2014

Following the recent update sent out from the VRCT, it is apparent that a certain amount of

clarification may be needed. I hope the following helps:

•  The current government has made it clear that they do not intend to add any more professions to the existing list of statutory registers
•  The government intends that professionals who should be regulated will use a system of accredited voluntary registers (AVR)
• These registers will be accredited through the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA).
• The VRCT Management Panel does not believe that voluntary registers are the correct solution and the goal remains to achieve statutory registration for clinical technologists.
• The government almost certainly will not permit statutory registration without going through the AVR process.
• The VRCT is considering a direct application to the PSA for accreditation as an AVR.
• The Academy for Healthcare Science (AHCS) set up a shadow voluntary register for unregulated Healthcare Scientists in June this year. It intends to apply to the PSA to have this register accredited in 2014. (Hence the consultation regarding standards)
• This register would also be accredited by the PSA. It will remain a voluntary register, andthere is no need for VRCT registrants to move to this register.
• The AHCS may also act as an umbrella organisation for other registers.
• The VRCT will consider any advantages this may offer over a direct application to the PSA.
• Employers should be more insistent that employees are registered with an accredited register. If this is not the case, then it reinforces the arguments that voluntary registers should become statutory.

Another key issue raised by a number of people is the restricted entry routes to the VRCT.  As a matter of urgency the VRCT Management Panel is planning an equivalence route to allow entry on to the register. We expect more news of this in the New Year.

At this stage if statutory registration is ever to become a reality it is vital that the number of clinical technologists on the register remains high so we request the patience of registrants while we continue to fight for the cause.

Andy Mosson

VRCT Registrar

December 2013

Dear Registrant

I am writing to introduce myself as the new Registrar of the VRCT, and to update you on important news affecting our Register.

I am Renal Technical Manager for Oxford University Hospitals Trust and past Chairman of the Association of Renal Technologists. I sit on the VRCT management panel as an elected representative of the Association of Renal Technologists (ART). I took over as Registrar from Jim Methven in November, and I would like to thank him for all his work on behalf of the Register over the last 13 years.

Important news:

• The Academy for Healthcare Science is currently consulting on standards for its proposed Register of Healthcare Science Practitioners. See http://www.ahcs.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AHCSPractitionerStandardsConsultation.pdf?utm_source=email The Academy aims to apply to the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) for this to be recognised as an Accredited Voluntary Register (AVR) in due course. The VRCT will be responding to the consultation and I would be happy to hear your views on the proposed standards. You can email me at Andy.Mosson@ouh.nhs.uk
• The Academy’s proposed Register is voluntary, like the VRCT, and it is not necessary for those already on the VRCT Register to move onto the Academy’s Register.
• The VRCT management panel has been looking at the pros and cons of the VRCT becoming an AVR, and the first steps have been taken to meet the standards required for this by the PSA. I will keep you updated on decisions and progress on this. Please feel free to email me with your views on this, and I will take them to the next management panel meeting on 19th February 2014.

I hope this update is useful, and I look forward to keeping in touch with you periodically by this

Andy Mosson

VRCT Registrar

December 2013