Re: [Histonet] Training programs in other countries (long)
In the UK we initially take a multi-disciplinary approach, with a BSc (Hons) in Biomedical Science.This is then followed by a period of in house training where the individual completes a training portfolio in their own particular discipline. Once complete and when their training officer is happy that they have reached the required standard, they are externally assessed and if they meet the requirements set by the Health Professions Council they are admitted onto the Biomedical Scientists register and are then allowed to practice as a Biomedical Scientist in their particular discipline.
Many then go onto do a Masters degree and in some cases MPhils and PhDs.
The professional body in the UK, the Institute of Biomedical Science (IBMS), has also developed a set of professional examinations called Higher Specialist Certificates which are also discipline specific.
If you need more information on any of these areas, may I suggest you look at the IBMS website at www.ibms.org as their is much on it to explain the process further.
Tom Wells wrote:
I am seeking information from those Histotechnologists that were trained in countries other than Canada or the US. I want to know how Histotechnology is taught in those countries.
In Canada, for example, Histotechnology is part of the general technology training that all laboratory technology students receive.
In the US, Histotechnology is a separate subject (I believe) and does not include Hematology, Microbiology, Clinical Chemistry, etc. The training is separate from that of the rest of medical technology. I would welcome more information from you American trained techs as well.
How is Histotechnology training handled in other countries and what are the reasons for the particular setup? History, Politics or Logic ;-)
The reason that I am seeking this information is that there is a feeling in some camps that Histotechnology is somehow "less" of a subject than the other tradional Medical Laboratory subjects and as such should be relegated to a separate program much like laboratory aids are. This opinion is generally expressed by people who have no current experience in Anatomical Pathology and were largely trained before the advent of Immunohistochemistry and FISH, etc. I need as much ammunition as possible to battle these people. Any comments would be appreciated. Even those of you that may agree with the separation of Histotechnology philosophy.
Thanks for you help in this.
British Columbia Institute of Technology
Histonet mailing list
Histonet mailing list
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>