> why should biochemist training not be organised nationally by the ACB?
It is already accredited nationally by the ACB, although the academic
training is mainly run by Universities. The courses which
the ACB does run certainly have a good reputation, but I imagine that
they involve a major workload for those who organise them.
> How would it be done? I suggest taking the Open University as a
> model with self-study material provided (and produced) centrally by
> the ACB. This would be complemented by tutorials in-house and
> directed reading.
Good idea - but expensive in terms of finance and time. I've had
some experience of teaching for the OU and have done some of their
courses. There is a huge academic and administrative backup to
produce, update, run and quality assess its courses. Although there
would be far fewer studnets in a, ACB-directed national Grade A
training scheme, the fixed costs of establishing and running the
scheme would be very great. There'd also be the further time
commitment required from trainee supervisors, many of whom already
have heavy service and management responsiblities on top of their
training work.
> What are the advantages? The expense of sending trainees away
to a University course
> might be reduced (or it might not - I don't know).
It would be replaced by many other costs! I think your comments
are worth discussing, but since the EVETSIN report on training of
Clinical Scientists, MTOs & MLSOs has now been submitted & its
recommendations and the DoH response should be in the public domain
soon, perhaps you could see what comes out of that and build your
case accordingly.
Dr J Pearson
Department of Chemical Pathology & Immunology
Leeds Teaching Hospitals
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|