The educational plans for the Technologists in this document seems to end at educational level 6 which seems to be a significant retro-grade step. I think it is important for the development of the quality of patient care that there are comparable educational opportunities - to degree and beyond - (that are recognised with appropiate grading) for "Health Care Practitioners" as other Health Care professions presently have.

If the career framework stage is equivalent to the agenda for change banding, this document in its current format will certainly bias clinical disciplines. However after following the Healthcare Scientist Practitioner training programme, and qualifying for regulation as a practitioner will get you on to band five. Then you can apply for the Healthcare scientist training programme; which lasts several years were you rotate through different disciplines in a clinical training programme, on successful completion you apply for Healthcare scientist regulation. By this time you will be suitably grey, worn out and up to your eyes in debt as a band five/six and will  have to wait for one of your colleagues to die before getting the chance to apply for a band six/seven as an Accredited Specialist Expertise (ASE). This seems to be the end of our career pathway unless you choose education or management.

It does seem as though the long term future is one of training technologists/scientists in appropriate multi disciplines so they can work were they are needed instead of choosing renal and working there until you retire.  

ART response to MSC Consultation

The Committee have not yet formulated a final response so these are still my initial personal thoughts.

The drawing has indeed changed in two key ways since the ART Annual meeting. (Please accept my apologies if this is not quite accurate because there have been so many changes over the last year that I struggle to remember which was presented where!)

The healthcare scientist box, yellow, has split into two. The green path is for a HCS employed in a defined job and who may move up the ladder, through career development to become an accredited specialist.

The yellow path is for the HCS who is being trained specifically for Higher Specialist Scientist status and regulation as such.

In principle, those on the green path should not be restricted from this higher regulation but may find it more difficult to go through to that level.

Both green and yellow paths are subject to the posts being created and available.

The blue path is now labelled Healthcare Scientist practitioner, (was this the case in October?  There is certainly some disagreement about the title) and this is where I expect most Renal Technologists to live. There is some disquiet about the levels but keep in mind the career framework levels are not AfC bandings. Career framework stage 6 needs to equate to AfC band 7 or better depending on exact local job description. This is a key input to the consultation process and HR departments need to be educated to understand that 9 MSC stages equate to 11 AfC bandings. (It could even be claimed that 8 MSC stages match 11 AfC bands with career stage 9, consultant level, being above AfC 8d)

The blue box has been a little capped in the latest diagrams. I think this should be extended back up to career stage 7 to reflect those who develop high level specialist skills and those who take on managerial responsibilities whilst still being practicing Renal Technologists. These are both very legitimate positions and need to be recognised as such. Certainly these grades should be recognised as comparative in career terms with the registered HCS in the yellow box even though they do not have the breadth of training given to the HCS.

Entry Routes: The model requires Foundation Degree/Diploma Higher Education or equivalent for entry into the Practitioner Training Programme and also allows for prior experience to be taken into account. This gives the flexibility to take on mature entrants which are common in our profession. The plan is also to provide funding for these training posts as supernumeraries which is a step forward. In principle there is also a path for Healthcare science assistants to move into the training scheme and I believe it is essential that there are no artificial barriers to this happening.

The consultation period closes on 27^th February so ART need more of your input now if it is to be included in our formal response.