Letter

Related Documents

Introduction

Surgeons Perspective

Anaesthetists Perspective

Nurses Perspective

Case for Statutory Regulation

As many of you will be aware; the Health Professions Council (HPC) has received the case for the Statutory Regulation of Clinical Perfusion Scientists. In support of our application we have sent all Members of both Houses of Parliament, Members of the Scottish Parliament, and Welsh Assembly Members an Information Pack that includes a film CD advocating our position, as well as demonstrating the support we have from our colleagues in other disciplines.

Already our Information Pack is generating very positive comment, indeed there is no doubt that those who have considered our application from an informed position do support it.

Along with the abovementioned programme of education and lobbying our Liaison Group Working Party have been asked to give a presentation to the HPC’s meeting in September. It is at this meeting that the HPC will decide whether to recommend our Statutory Regulation to the Secretary of State.

Clearly there are a number of possible outcomes from such a recommendation, hence the ballot you will have recently participated in (the results of which will appear in the July edition of "Perfusionist").

The roadmap for Statutory Regulation is, as you will have gathered from the ballot information, less than straightforward. However the HPC has drawn up a Flowchart at:

www.hpc-uk.org/professions/new_professions.htm

..that seeks to guide "aspirant professions" through what may appear to many as an exhaustive process. Although one must understand when viewing this link that the Department of Health’s (DH) Health Regulation Branch performs the DH’s role in this process.

Our application demonstrates eligibility for regulation in all three of the following criteria;

1. Invasive Procedures

Clinical Perfusion Scientists control, manage, and are responsible for the single most invasive tool used today in routine surgery.

2. Clinical intervention with the potential for harm

Sadly we will demonstrate the potential for harm in our routine clinical intervention as exemplified by coroner’s correspondence detailed in our full application.

3. Exercise of judgement by unsupervised professionals, which can substantially impact on patient health or welfare.

Clinical evidence outlined in papers from learned journals submitted as part of our full application confirm the capacity of the routine judgement of the Clinical Perfusion Scientist to impact on patient mortality and morbidity.

Our full application will also demonstrate the following;

1. Homogeneity across our profession, with activities practised being unique to and common across clinical perfusion science.
2. A defined body of knowledge to support our unique skills and responsibilities.
3. Evidence detailing Clinical Perfusion Scientists’ contributions in shaping practice evolution through publication in learned journals.
4. That the Society of Clinical Perfusion Scientists of Great Britain and Ireland represents, and is representative of, the Clinical Perfusion Scientist community across our constituency.
5. The Voluntary Register held by the College of Clinical Perfusion Scientists of Great Britain and Ireland as being complete, with a tested, robust, in-operation mechanism of re-registration assessment.
6. Defined routes of entry to our profession for common routes e.g. Trainee Clinical Perfusion Scientists, and less traditional routes.
7. The College of Clinical Perfusion Scientists of Great Britain and Ireland, made up of Clinical Perfusion Scientists, senior cardiothoracic surgeons, senior cardiothoracic anaesthetists, and senior academic clinicians, is an independent body performing, diligently and professionally, validatory procedures on a wide range of clinical perfusion science courses and qualifications.
8. Clinical Perfusion Scientists’ commitment to standards of good conduct, standards of good performance, and standards of ethics. With a Code of Conduct since 1974 and a rigorous Standards of Practice Document.
9. Clinical Perfusion Scientists’ commitment to enforce the above standards with agreed and tested Disciplinary Procedures.
10. Clinical Perfusion Scientists’ commitment to Continual Professional Development, with CPD being built into re-registration mechanisms.

We have as Clinical Perfusion Scientists filled the regulatory vacuum in an exemplary manner. Establishing a thorough, robust, and highly commendable infrastructure of professionalism that has served the public exceptionally well and that warrants statutory regulation through the Health Professions Council.

I will of course update you further as this tremendously important issue develops and there will be a complete update of these matters at the October Congress, by which time we should know the HPC’s decision.

I very much look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at what will definitely be an important AGM.

June 2003.

Gerry Webb,

Chairman.