Which healthcare/clinical scientist specialties tend to be the most widespread....?

@RegisteredBMS might have some idea on the healthcare/biomedical scientist side of things? It might be different for clinical scientists though.

Will they get notified that yoy tagged them in this thread??

Yes, that is why I did so

I'm a Specialist Biomedical Scientist in Microbiology. I have previously worked in Biochemistry.

In Microbiology, we consult directly with a team of Consultant Microbiologist's. These are people who have completed med school, gone through all their training and specialised in this field.

In Biochemistry, we never had doctors as part of our laboratory team. We had Clinical Scientist's who would interpret the results and liaise with the ward-based doctors and provide clinical advice.

I can only imagine it's due to the more complex nature of Microbiology. As a Biomedical Scientist, it is definitely more complex working in Microbiology as compared to Biochemistry. You'll find in the NHS that if they can move work to a lower staff grade, they will. Obviously it makes sense as it is cost-saving.

There are Microbiology laboratories that do employ Clinical Scientist's. These aren't that common and tend to be the largest laboratories in each region. Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Manchester etc and it will be a single one who may work more in research. At least that was my experience of the one regional laboratory I have experience of.

So to answer your question, yes some specialities employ less Clinical Scientist's. Microbiology is definitely one of those.

So what would be the difference in scope between a biomedical scientist and a clinical scientist in the microbiology field?

A Biomedical Scientist in Microbiology interprets results in the laboratory and releases them. Dependant on the contents of the result, it will either go straight out to to the ward/GP, or fall onto an authorisation queue which the medics review.

Although rare in Microbiology, if a Clinical Scientist was deployed in a clinical Microbiology setting, it would be to review the significant results from the laboratory, suppress any antibiotics that shouldn't be used (i.e based on area of the body, and any that are reserved for treatment failure) and also provide clinical advice when contacted. I've not encountered anyone deployed in that way, my experience of Microbiology Clinical Scientists was at Leeds General Infirmary, and he told us he mainly did R&D.

And what is the difference between them in terms of the knowledge they hold? Aren't they interchangeable (each job can be done by the other)?

Absolutely not. Someone that has been a Biomedical Scientist in Biochemistry for 30 years would have no idea that Klesbiella sp. are intrinsically resistant to Amoxicillin, or be able to differentiate white cells in a CSF, or even be able to identify bacteria, and presumptively ID, via a gram stain + microscopy.

Ok, so what does a biomedical scientist know that a clinical scientist doesn't?

They're completely different job roles, so although there will be some shared knowledge between them within the same disciplines, neither will be able to do the others job. I've not gone into more detail because my original post was about people of the same job title in different pathology disciplines.

And one last question: why do you think there are so few clinical scientist in Microbiology? You mentioned above that it might have to do with microbiology being more complex but wouldn't it require MORE clinical scientists in that case?

No. The reason Clinical Scientists exist is to bridge a gap between laboratory staff and medical consultants within pathology. In Microbiology, I release results and significant ones are then reviewed by a Consultant Microbiologist. They are medical consultants, not laboratory. This previously would have applied to other pathology disciplines too. It's financially efficient to create a job role that exists between Biomedical Scientists, and medical consultants that are able to do the jobs that don't fit the skill set of a laboratory staff member, but are on the lower end of the skill set of a medical consultant.

This kind of thinking applies in other areas of the laboratory too. For example, for a lot of years Pathology pretty much had Medical Laboratory Assistants and Biomedical Scientists in the laboratory only. That's a Band 2 and a Band 5 position. This meant that some work that the BMS did was quite easy, but wasn't suitable for a MLA. Within the last 10-15 years we have employed more and more Associate Practitioner's, who act at Band 3 and Band 4 to take work from Biomedical Scientist's that is easy.

Spreading the work load onto staff at a lower pay band is obviously cost saving. Clinical Scientist's essentially exist to employ less medical consultants in pathology, and if they could do more so in Microbiology, they would.

I'm bumping this thread and asking for your help again as you seem to be the only person on this forum that is knowledgeable about the clinical scientist profession... .

I wanted to ask if there is any opportunity to do locum/agency work as a clinical scientist? Does it vary between specialties? This is a very important thing to me in terms of choosing a career.

Yes, but only for somebody who has gained registration as a HCPC registered Clinical Scientist

Have you ever heard of/met a clinical scientist doing locum work then? Are there enough opportunities to do 30-36 hours of work per week this way?

No