Clinical, healthcare, and biomedical scientists (and clinical physiologists, please don't forget them) are absolutely necessary in the NHS, and I'm not sure what would make anyone think otherwise. In Scotland, our Clinical Physiology (Respiratory/Audiology/Sleep/Cardiac/GI/Neuro etc) teams take care of all sorts of testing ordered by doctors and other professionals.
These include ETT/EST (exercise tolerance, cardiac), PTNS (neuromodulation, GI), EMG (electromyography, neuro), NCS (nerve conduction, neuro), and a whole load more that I'm sure I wouldn't even understand. Some of these used to be done by other members of the medical team, but as patient numbers increased, it became unsustainable, leading to the creation of new roles and degree programmes. In Scotland, we have a specific BSc (Hons) Clinical Physiology programme at Glasgow Cal, which provides us with a chunk of the scientists we need. Additionally, we have ICBM and RCCP, the regulatory groups for Biomedical and Health Sciences, that gives us the registration for these wonderful people. Again, these roles have developed within the NHS into individual roles, now giving us scientists who specialise in reproductive medicine, infectious diseases, etc.
I'm no expert on the HCPC/RCCP/AHCS registered professions, as I only entered the NHS a few years ago, but what I do know is that if they all disappeared from the NHS, everything would fall apart; imagine an NHS without perfusion scientists, sleep physiologists, neurophysiologists, biomedical scientists. Say goodbye to proper diagnostics of neurological conditions, a heap of specific blood testing, sleep studies for OSA/CSA, and SO many other things; it would be a scramble to spread the jobs over to other people.
I'm not sure what your politician question means, since we do need politicians of some description to represent areas in parliament that otherwise wouldn't have a voice - again, I use Scotland as a reference; we have nearly 800 islands, split into different groups, and some seriously poverty-affected groups of people, who are all represented at a local level by our MSPs. Politics is interesting, and I admire people who enter the profession for the right reason. We unfortunately have a load of them who entered it for the wrong reasons, but until someone comes up with another plan, we're stuck with 'em.
Scientists need doctors, and doctors need scientists. My colleagues can't treat the patient alone; we need a whole range of professionals involved, from all sorts of different professions. So no, don't compare doctors and scientists, or their attitudes to each other. We all need each other, or nobody would get the help they need. We make the odd joke about how audiologists pretend not to hear their bleepers, or how the biomed students are actually the messiest group in the lab building, but we all need and support each other when we need it.
These include ETT/EST (exercise tolerance, cardiac), PTNS (neuromodulation, GI), EMG (electromyography, neuro), NCS (nerve conduction, neuro), and a whole load more that I'm sure I wouldn't even understand. Some of these used to be done by other members of the medical team, but as patient numbers increased, it became unsustainable, leading to the creation of new roles and degree programmes. In Scotland, we have a specific BSc (Hons) Clinical Physiology programme at Glasgow Cal, which provides us with a chunk of the scientists we need. Additionally, we have ICBM and RCCP, the regulatory groups for Biomedical and Health Sciences, that gives us the registration for these wonderful people. Again, these roles have developed within the NHS into individual roles, now giving us scientists who specialise in reproductive medicine, infectious diseases, etc.
I'm no expert on the HCPC/RCCP/AHCS registered professions, as I only entered the NHS a few years ago, but what I do know is that if they all disappeared from the NHS, everything would fall apart; imagine an NHS without perfusion scientists, sleep physiologists, neurophysiologists, biomedical scientists. Say goodbye to proper diagnostics of neurological conditions, a heap of specific blood testing, sleep studies for OSA/CSA, and SO many other things; it would be a scramble to spread the jobs over to other people.
I'm not sure what your politician question means, since we do need politicians of some description to represent areas in parliament that otherwise wouldn't have a voice - again, I use Scotland as a reference; we have nearly 800 islands, split into different groups, and some seriously poverty-affected groups of people, who are all represented at a local level by our MSPs. Politics is interesting, and I admire people who enter the profession for the right reason. We unfortunately have a load of them who entered it for the wrong reasons, but until someone comes up with another plan, we're stuck with 'em.
Scientists need doctors, and doctors need scientists. My colleagues can't treat the patient alone; we need a whole range of professionals involved, from all sorts of different professions. So no, don't compare doctors and scientists, or their attitudes to each other. We all need each other, or nobody would get the help they need. We make the odd joke about how audiologists pretend not to hear their bleepers, or how the biomed students are actually the messiest group in the lab building, but we all need and support each other when we need it.
Original post by jeggs90sophie
Clinical, healthcare, and biomedical scientists (and clinical physiologists, please don't forget them) are absolutely necessary in the NHS, and I'm not sure what would make anyone think otherwise. In Scotland, our Clinical Physiology (Respiratory/Audiology/Sleep/Cardiac/GI/Neuro etc) teams take care of all sorts of testing ordered by doctors and other professionals.
These include ETT/EST (exercise tolerance, cardiac), PTNS (neuromodulation, GI), EMG (electromyography, neuro), NCS (nerve conduction, neuro), and a whole load more that I'm sure I wouldn't even understand. Some of these used to be done by other members of the medical team, but as patient numbers increased, it became unsustainable, leading to the creation of new roles and degree programmes. In Scotland, we have a specific BSc (Hons) Clinical Physiology programme at Glasgow Cal, which provides us with a chunk of the scientists we need. Additionally, we have ICBM and RCCP, the regulatory groups for Biomedical and Health Sciences, that gives us the registration for these wonderful people. Again, these roles have developed within the NHS into individual roles, now giving us scientists who specialise in reproductive medicine, infectious diseases, etc.
I'm no expert on the HCPC/RCCP/AHCS registered professions, as I only entered the NHS a few years ago, but what I do know is that if they all disappeared from the NHS, everything would fall apart; imagine an NHS without perfusion scientists, sleep physiologists, neurophysiologists, biomedical scientists. Say goodbye to proper diagnostics of neurological conditions, a heap of specific blood testing, sleep studies for OSA/CSA, and SO many other things; it would be a scramble to spread the jobs over to other people.
I'm not sure what your politician question means, since we do need politicians of some description to represent areas in parliament that otherwise wouldn't have a voice - again, I use Scotland as a reference; we have nearly 800 islands, split into different groups, and some seriously poverty-affected groups of people, who are all represented at a local level by our MSPs. Politics is interesting, and I admire people who enter the profession for the right reason. We unfortunately have a load of them who entered it for the wrong reasons, but until someone comes up with another plan, we're stuck with 'em.
Scientists need doctors, and doctors need scientists. My colleagues can't treat the patient alone; we need a whole range of professionals involved, from all sorts of different professions. So no, don't compare doctors and scientists, or their attitudes to each other. We all need each other, or nobody would get the help they need. We make the odd joke about how audiologists pretend not to hear their bleepers, or how the biomed students are actually the messiest group in the lab building, but we all need and support each other when we need it.
These include ETT/EST (exercise tolerance, cardiac), PTNS (neuromodulation, GI), EMG (electromyography, neuro), NCS (nerve conduction, neuro), and a whole load more that I'm sure I wouldn't even understand. Some of these used to be done by other members of the medical team, but as patient numbers increased, it became unsustainable, leading to the creation of new roles and degree programmes. In Scotland, we have a specific BSc (Hons) Clinical Physiology programme at Glasgow Cal, which provides us with a chunk of the scientists we need. Additionally, we have ICBM and RCCP, the regulatory groups for Biomedical and Health Sciences, that gives us the registration for these wonderful people. Again, these roles have developed within the NHS into individual roles, now giving us scientists who specialise in reproductive medicine, infectious diseases, etc.
I'm no expert on the HCPC/RCCP/AHCS registered professions, as I only entered the NHS a few years ago, but what I do know is that if they all disappeared from the NHS, everything would fall apart; imagine an NHS without perfusion scientists, sleep physiologists, neurophysiologists, biomedical scientists. Say goodbye to proper diagnostics of neurological conditions, a heap of specific blood testing, sleep studies for OSA/CSA, and SO many other things; it would be a scramble to spread the jobs over to other people.
I'm not sure what your politician question means, since we do need politicians of some description to represent areas in parliament that otherwise wouldn't have a voice - again, I use Scotland as a reference; we have nearly 800 islands, split into different groups, and some seriously poverty-affected groups of people, who are all represented at a local level by our MSPs. Politics is interesting, and I admire people who enter the profession for the right reason. We unfortunately have a load of them who entered it for the wrong reasons, but until someone comes up with another plan, we're stuck with 'em.
Scientists need doctors, and doctors need scientists. My colleagues can't treat the patient alone; we need a whole range of professionals involved, from all sorts of different professions. So no, don't compare doctors and scientists, or their attitudes to each other. We all need each other, or nobody would get the help they need. We make the odd joke about how audiologists pretend not to hear their bleepers, or how the biomed students are actually the messiest group in the lab building, but we all need and support each other when we need it.
Yes, well that's what I'm asking: Wouldn't doctors themselves be able to perform those tests that the physiologists do (you mention that they used to be performed by other members of staff...whom? The doctors)? Do we have clinical scientists only because the number of patients has gone up then?
Thanks for the detailed reply btw.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by kelpic
Yes, well that's what I'm asking: Wouldn't doctors themselves be able to perform those tests that the physiologists do (you mention that they used to be performed by other members of staff...whom? The doctors)? Do we have clinical scientists only because the number of patients has gone up then?
Thanks for the detailed reply btw.
Thanks for the detailed reply btw.
Sort of,the only real obstable would probably be familiarity with how to operate the machinery, which isn't the most difficult thing in the world I imagine
Original post by ODPSCP
Sort of,the only real obstable would probably be familiarity with how to operate the machinery, which isn't the most difficult thing in the world I imagine
Are you in healthcare yourself? What role?
Original post by kelpic
Are you in healthcare yourself? What role?
ODP
Original post by kelpic
Yes, well that's what I'm asking: Wouldn't doctors themselves be able to perform those tests that the physiologists do (you mention that they used to be performed by other members of staff...whom? The doctors)? Do we have clinical scientists only because the number of patients has gone up then?
Thanks for the detailed reply btw.
Thanks for the detailed reply btw.
It's largely a question of diversification and specialisation.
Could a doctor do a lot of the things a clinical scientist does? Sure, but it would (a) take them away from other things they need to do, and (b) as they have other things to do they wouldn't be able to focus on learning as much specialist knowledge about the science.
In the most basic terms, once a role becomes enough work to be it's own job, then it's probably worthwhile that it becomes a separate job. The role of clinical scientists is so entirely different from doctors that there's not much point in spending a bunch of money on training them in core medical and patient care modules they wouldn't use, so it's become its own distinct sector.
I often describe clinical science as "understanding the science, so the doctors don't have to". It's good for the referring doctor to be aware of a bit of the science, but they don't need to understand all the details. The role of a clinical scientist is to interpret the data for the doctor and translate it into language they understand (with additional advice as required). By it being its own role, clinical scientists are able to drill into the science to a level that a doctor would never have time for. Plus clinical scientists can develop their services to further improve patient healthcare - which again wouldn't be possible if it was a side task for doctors.
The analogy of civil servants to politicians is fairly apt - specialists who dig into the data and then advise the generalist. The analogy often bandied about is that of the orchestra. The doctor is the conductor - they need to know how to use everyone's skills most effectively so the whole process works, but you'd never expect the conductor to pick up and play the violin. The other specialisms (pharmacist's, radiographers, clinical scientists, physiotherapists etc) are the players.
In terms of why the role has arisen, it's more to do with the growing complexities of modern medicine than patient numbers. Genetics for example has exploded in the last thirty years, from diagnosis to gene therapy. Is it worth training up a doctor in medicine for all that work? Probably not. Historically it was academically trained scientists who were taken on, but even that isn't perfect since the lot of skills in research aren't really required in a clinical environment. Consequently, clinical scientist training has recently focused on ensuring clinical scientists are more relevantly trained for their specific role from the ground up to avoid 'skill wastage' - partly clinical, partly research, rather than all one or the other. So there has been a gradual development of the role over the years - from bringing researchers into the hospital to training Clinical Scientists as its own distinct role.
Where patient numbers have made a difference is in workload. Historically, clinical scientists used to be just that, scientists - carrying out novel research for part of the week. As workloads increased, the work that could be sidelined was the research - to the point where Clinical Scientists are more analysts than scientists. Now in many centres you rarely see novel research being carried out as part of the routine schedule because the clinical services workload is so high (for better or worse!). So the role has changed quite a bit over the years.
It's also worth noting, the implementation of clinical scientists is very different around the world. Some nations do use doctors in the place of where the UK uses clinical scientists. The process of developing clinical scientists in the UK (the Modernising Scientific Careers (MSC) policies) has attracted international interest, and is somewhat pioneering in it's scope. MSC is also in relative infancy, so I wouldn't be surprised to see more profound changes to come (e.g. could clinical science start it's intake at degree level similar to Medicine, rather than training being a post-grad programme? Potentially. Currently Clinical Science trainees select their specialism before they start rotations, which seems all kinds of backward).
And finally, some specialisms use both consultant clinicians and consultant clinical scientists to run a department (e.g. Biochemistry and Microbiology). How that works and the difference between those roles? Not a clue! My field just uses Clinical Scientists!
(I'm a clinical scientist)
(edited 1 year ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- how can you become a clinical scientist?
- STP Career Advice Needed.
- I'm a Biomedical Scientist, AMA!
- How to become a Clinical Scientist?
- Becoming Clinical Scientist without STP
- Scientist Training Programme NHS
- Non-Accredited Biomedicine degree
- Life as a clinical scientist and career progression
- Urgent please help
- Becoming a Neuropsychologist or Neuroscientist
- Biomed questions; can I become a biomedical scientist and then work towards the STP?
- Nhs stp 2022
- Is it worth thinking about veterinary medicine after finishing yr 13
- Advice needed for student interested in mental health
- Autism
- Help!! Biomedical science to medicine?
- No such thing as a well paid Biology/Biological sciences job?
- Is taking an alevel not irrelevant to my degree and career choice a bad idea?
- IBMS top up modules
- Clinical scientist or Biomedical scientist
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
I hate pharmacy, shall I quit my pre-reg? Trainee pharmacist.Last reply 1 month ago
2 year MSc Occupational Therapy course or 3 Year Bsc Adult Nursing?Last reply 2 months ago
Apprentice Pre-registration Trainee Pharmacy TechnicianTrending
Last reply 1 week ago
I hate pharmacy, shall I quit my pre-reg? Trainee pharmacist.Last reply 1 month ago
2 year MSc Occupational Therapy course or 3 Year Bsc Adult Nursing?Last reply 2 months ago
Apprentice Pre-registration Trainee Pharmacy Technician
