This is (supposed to be) a reflective diary by a (not very) anonymous biomedical scientist who works somewhere in the south of England.
One day this diary may well be submitted to the Health Professions Council as evidence of ongoing continual professional development....
Having a spare five minutes this morning I thought I'd better get on with my mandatory training. First of all "Infection Control". It sounds like a particularly relevant topic, but the course was, like most of hospital life, geared up to the needs and aspirations of nurses. The relevance of the course material to my daily round was rather sparse.
And then "Clinical Governance". Even though I have the certificate, I find myself unable to concisely explain what "Clinical Governance" is. I think it's something about trying to do the best job that we possibly can and about learning from mistakes to improve our services. However I did actually laugh out loud when I read that Clinical Governance is (supposedly) NOT:
a stick to bash health professionals with
another management fad
a 'blame' thing
I do know that I can put the wind up the management every time I don't get my own way by announcing that their schemes have "governance issues", but eventually someone will wise up to what I am doing. Unless they are as in the dark as I am as to exactly what a "governance issue" is.
The training was provided electronically, and the final examination quizzes were rather risible. Rather than testing knowledge, participants are required to fill in the appropriate missing word. However it had to be the correct missing word. Synonyms would not do. "Large" would be acceptable, whereas "huge", "big", "enormous" or "gurt" would not.
Fortunately for us participants, whoever designed the program had left us with a loophole. It was possible to call up the course material whilst completing the final test. And so passing an irrelevant test became a mere formality.
It's a shame that serious topics have been reduced to no more than box-ticking exercises.