CMT(V) Policy Letter

#1
Well, it's out and its not classified, so I feel safe discussing it here; that said, I'm not going to quote the whole thing. The essence is that the CMT (V) is less widely employable without additional training than his Regular counterpart. The meat of the policy is contained in a single sentence:

Cbt Med Tech (V) up to and including Class 1 are only to manage patients under the direct supervision of a Regular Cbt Med Tech Class 1, nurse or medical officer.
So a WO2 CMT1(V) can only treat patients under the supervision of a LCpl CMT1. Of course, the definition of "supervision" is left wide open, although "direct" implies that the Regular must be physically present. Naturally CMT(V)s with civvie med quals are excluded.

My main worry, though, is the assertion elsewhere that a CMT2 Regular takes 39 weeks to train. The clinical training of a CMT2 is only 15 weeks long. Admittedly this is followed by 8 weeks' placement to bed-in the training (as has been discussed at length elsewhere) and there's also MAC Pt 1 in the Single Service phase; but the key clinical skills equivalent is delivered and assessed in that 15-week window.

I don't dispute the Policy conclusions. But I wonder whether it would be that radically difficult to amend the CMT(V) course programme to bring them up to an equivalent competence with CMT Regular. We already know that CMT trainees tend to work fairly short days. Longer days in the CMT(V) courses, combined with rigorous pre-reading and preparatory trg in units, followed up with mandatory placement periods in lieu of part or all of annual camp would go a long way to bridge the gap. CMT(V)s are often better motivated to learn and I would not be surprised if they could be expected to complete a course book on placements in less than half the time of a Regular trainee.

This is mentioned in the policy letter, of course, as it says that the "future role" of the CMT(V) is being looked at. But I wonder whether re-roling this trade is ultimately going to less efficient than just delivering better and more focused training. We rely so much on the AMS TA to meet our operational commitments that reducing the pool of qualified CMT1s seems to be just shooting ourselves in the foot.

IF
 
#2
IF,

So when can I expect my letter? It's nice to know that I have had absolutely no communication about this- except for what I read on this site! :roll:

My particular case: CMT (V), Class 2, RAMC cap-badge attached to infantry. Civi job- Doctorate in Environmental Technology AKA Posh Engineer. Personally, I would prefer a bit more training before being sent out, having only done 2 2-week courses, however good these were. :wink:

However, this whole situation needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is ridiculous to suggest that every CMT (V) is incompetent (or at least so laking in basic skills that someone needs to watch them!).

I totally agree that rigorous pre-reading and preparatory training in units is a must (although it is difficult to see how that could happen in my particular case, seeing as our SM is a CMT 3- perhaps ship us off to medical units? Different thread altogether).

I find this really difficult to comprehend that CMT (V)s are being shipped out to fill gaps which they will no longer be qualified to fill.

I feel quite miffed!

:?
 
#3
Doesn't this all revolve around Clinical Governance? i.e. no-one can practice in a military environment skills which they do not use on a day-to-day basis.
 
#4
chaffinch said:
Doesn't this all revolve around Clinical Governance? i.e. no-one can practice in a military environment skills which they do not use on a day-to-day basis.
The real problem for CMTs, even before the days of CG, is that they get staggeringly little 'hands on' time with live patients. I've never faulted their training, which was (and presumably still is) top notch. But there is no substitute for experience. I am biased by my past I know, but the RN MA does better clinically and in CG terms for just that reason. Unfair perhaps as like is not necesarily being compared with like in terms of how they are employed.

Trouble is, now all the Military Hospitals are shut down, I suspect there is no way to fix the problem.
 
#5
Chaffinch Wrote:

Doesn't this all revolve around Clinical Governance? i.e. no-one can practice in a military environment skills which they do not use on a day-to-day basis.
You are quite correct in that the recent DG Policy Letter is a reactive one to protect the CMT(V) as much as protect the AMS in light of Clinical Governance, yes there will be CMT's who are very, very compentent but sadly there are those who are not.

This I can guarentee you wont be the last you have heard on this subject and I am sure that CMT (V)'s will soon be treating as normal once the CG issues have been resolved. In the meantime the CMT(V)'s have to grin and bare it as only CMT's can. They still provide the backbone to any TA unit and without their support the TA Fd Hosp's would fall flat on theire ARRSES !
 
#6
ive recently transferred to RAMC (TA) from HAC and have been told that CMT courses are likely to be phased out , but maybe replaced with soemthing else ..any ideas ..On speaking to the OC it was basically to do with health and safety , ie having to spend so many days a year practicing your trade ..every day in regs but not so in TA ..any ideas
 

Ventress

LE
Moderator
#7
biffa said:
ive recently transferred to RAMC (TA) from HAC and have been told that CMT courses are likely to be phased out , but maybe replaced with soemthing else ..any ideas ..On speaking to the OC it was basically to do with health and safety , ie having to spend so many days a year practicing your trade ..every day in regs but not so in TA ..any ideas
The posh 'word' is Clinical Governance.
 
#8
Clinical Governance Rules ALL. Soon CMTs as a CEG will change due to Clinical Governance. Seriously though, TA Medics however good do not get the same training and experience as their Reg counterparts. Its not discrimination. Its a fact.
 
#9
Sorry forgot to mention, Vicious, you are so right. Having served with both Reg and TA medics, without CMTs the units would collapse
 
#11
Unfortunately, Civvi Paramedic is not your CEG.

I agree that it should be. Having worked with MEDMIS and DMS FORGE I know what they look at when seeking individuals for mobilisation. For the Dox and Nurses they look at their professional quals, for CMTs, this is not the case.
 
#12
so are we saying that CMTs are required to have good fieldcraft skills as well as their civvy para quali in order to be deemed competent ?
 

Ventress

LE
Moderator
#13
biffa said:
so are we saying that CMTs are required to have good fieldcraft skills as well as their civvy para quali in order to be deemed competent ?
Pretty much, they will have to the job in CivDiv to be a CMT(V) in the TA.
 
#14
From the CMT(V)s that were mobilised that I know, not many were utilising their clinical skills, more like their Stagging On skills because of Clinical Governance. I know it caused a big headache for the CoC
 
#15
is their a reason why clinical governence has come about?? malpractice etc etc if we take a TA paratrooper , he may do a few weekends a year blah blah and then be expected to go to Telic and take his position within a regular para reg unit ..the concept is the same although i agree their is more to learn as a CMT ..ive recently transferred from HAC to RAMC and maybe one of the last to get on a CMT course , i thought the course (on paper) looked good but from what i read on here CMT's are mickey mouse ..what is the truth ..
 
#17
biffa said:
is their a reason why clinical governance has come about?? malpractice etc etc
It was originally designed to catch poor practice by Drs designed by Drs working for our present government (spit). However the White paper (Dec 1997) The new NHS, modern, dependable. Recommended the role out to all areas of health care, the military had no choice but take it on board.

Clinical Governance in practice works, it is a process that if used appropriately can help CMTs to gain recognition i.e. through education, and it was not invented or designed by the QAs as inferred by the link above.

The definition used by the services is intended to embody three key attributes: recognisably high standards of care, transparent responsibility and accountability for those standards, and a constant dynamic of improvement.

And until some form of professionally recognised qualification with a professional body is awarded then CMTs, TA or not can not prove "responsibility and accountability" as set by a governing body.
 
#19
how about civvy paramedics , operationaly more experienced than a reg CMT -surely ??
I'm sure I mentioned that... Oh yes, I did:

Naturally CMT(V)s with civvie med quals are excluded.
The policy specifically mentions paramedics, ambulance technicians and RGNs. I don't know the status of HCAs under this policy, but as they can't practice unsupervised anyway, I don't suppose they're covered.

IF
 
#20
Sorry to go a bit of topic, but I am pretty sure you guys wil know the answer to this one.......

Do the TAMS recognise Civi Ambulance Quals?

I know there are three levels to the CMT trade, but where do NHS Ambulance Technicians fit in to that structure.

If I was to join the TAMS as a CMT(V) would I have to start at the bottom (CMT3) ???? (As far as I can make out CMT3 is a first aid level)

I was hoping that a civi to military conversion course would be the way forward, so that I could join at the correct level for my Qualification.

Or am I being far to hopeful ?!

BTW > I am a NHS Ambulance Tech, and I am thinking of joing the TA as a CMT(V)...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top