Ian

I agree - why not? IMHO well done for raising an issue when you should have expected some heavy incoming as a result: some friendly fire and some not quite so friendly. Even though this is supposed to be a discussion forum I suspect many are wisely keeping down their heads. So here goes...

There is nothing like a good demarcation issue to generate a bit of heat. I remember sitting through a very interesting local staff-side 'discussion' between NHS painters and electricians as to which was most skilled, and by implication which group should be paid most.

If Clinical Scientists prescribed there are issues about competence and training that would need to be address and it wouldn't be suitable for all of us (I would certainly need some training but who doesn't!).

Can I stir things up more and reflect that one difference between clinical scientists and the other professions nationally is we lack the advocacy of a single profession association: compared with doctors, BMSs, pharmacists, nurses, dieticians, therapists and so on.

Secondly I have noticed we are as a group uniquely polite to other professions while they say what they like about us

By the way I have also heard other medical physicians say they should do the lipid clinics as they have a wider general medical experience than Chemical Pathologists.

Best regards to all

Steve

(Clinical Scientist)

________________________________________________________

Views expressed are my own and not necessarily those of the Trust.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Barlow [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 23 April 2008 15:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Clinical Scientist Prescribing (was Lipid Clinics)

Thank you David for your input, but increasingly, like it or not, professional boundaries are being broken down and are becoming very blurred.

If Nurses, Pharmacists, Dieticians etc etc are encouraged/developed (after appropriate training) to hold clinics then why not Clinical Scientists?

You state:-

"I have a far greater sense of unease at the prospect of scientists trying to muscle in on clinical work. Unfortunately, there seems to be a trend with people thinking they are above doing more traditional aspects of their jobs and seeking to cadge bits from other people so as to appear more important and get better paid"

- just to clarify my position - I have been approached by one of my cardiologists as to whether I would consider doing joint lipid clinics with him. Therefore this is not about "cadging bits from other people so as to appear more important and get a better paid job".

Best wishes

Ian

-----Original Message-----[Ian Barlow]
From: Clinical biochemistry discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of David Hardy
Sent: 23 April 2008 13:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Clinical Scientist Prescribing (was Lipid Clinics)

No, sorry, I firmly believe in horses for courses.

Those of us that work (or have worked) in laboratory medicine know only too well what can happen to (say) a blood gas machine when junior medical staff get at it, even after they have had appropriate training. They may be doing the testing, but they do not have the background training in analytical science to appreciate all the pitfalls. And why should they? They are employed to treat the patients and we hope they have an appropriate understanding of what is involved in that to do a good job. Scientists (all flavours) are there to do the science, keep the service running and guide the clinicians in these specialist areas. I have always felt a sense of unease in devolving testing to those whose training is not in clinical/biomedical science. I have a far greater sense of unease at the prospect of scientists trying to muscle in on clinical work.

The training of a clinical biochemist naturally concentrates on the science - there is enough medicine covered to make for intelligent discussions with clinical colleagues. It is never going to be a substitute for a medical training. Unfortunately, there seems to be a trend with people thinking they are above doing more traditional aspects of their jobs and seeking to cadge bits from other people so as to appear more important and get better paid.

Years ago at my Grade A interview I was asked if I believed there was a place for clinical scientists. I said that I did (obviously) because I felt there was a need for people who understood the fundamental science and could guide the use of laboratory testing. The comment of one of the interviewers was telling - "There are too many clinical scientists who think they are doctors."

You want to be a scientist, you train as a scientist. You want to be a doctor, you go to medical school. I wouldn't want to find the cardiology SHO trying to fix an HPLC. I certainly don't want my medical conditions managed by someone who has been on some sort of top-up course.

Dave

Dr David Hardy

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1393 - Release Date: 23/04/2008 08:12

------ACB discussion List Information-------- This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical community working in clinical biochemistry. Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and they are responsible for all message content. ACB Web Site http://www.acb.org.uk List Archives http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html List Instructions (How to leave etc.) http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/