Posted by vsarmiento, 3/4/2010 6:23:22 AM

Being properly credentialed or certified definitely will help ones pocketbook.  But when the reality sets in, we cannot automatically equate that being a certified individual to being a competent person to do the job.  We have to understand the fact  that most of the certification processes deals with the theoretical aspects of any particular subject(s), while being able to demonstrate the abilities to apply that certified knowledge is what is known as competency. It sure will help an individual to be partly qualified due to his /her being certified, but to stay and be successful in any job requires that individual to be competent.    

Posted by Joe Reynolds, 3/9/2010 8:19:05 AM

In principle I agree that certification is desireable; however, only if that certification is universal in the competencies being certified.  For example the prerequisites for CBET certification are not equal between countries.  In my opinion this creates uncertainty regarding the value of the certification.
Using the analogy of the avaition engineering community, many different airlines from many different countries fly within the confines of US airspace.  I would submit that they all have different criteria for ensuring the compentency of the technicians performing the required maintenance.  Their certification may or may not be directly transferrable to US civil avaition standards.
Until all aspects of certification are standardized doubt will remain regarding the validity of the certification.  At this point in time it would seem that the CBET certification is country specific and not international.

Posted by vsarmiento, 3/9/2010 2:13:29 PM

With respect to Joe Reynolds' comment, (if he meant universal to be the same as in global),  I would say it is kind of impossible to achieve.  The perception for a universally acceptable form of certification or licensure although it is an ideal thing, will never come to fruition. It is not practical nor feasible thing to pursue, never going happen even locally in this country.

Here in the U.S.,  due to differing / varying Federal and State laws, not to mention the never ending politics, it will be very hard to have one set of standards on any field of endeavor, let alone be certified and be recognized as an expert on any chosen field.  The argument applies to any profession, as in MDs, Engineers, Accountants, etc. A good example is, let say I received my certification or licensure from New York State, that piece of paper, as stated in my license does not qualify me nor guaranty that I can practice and conduct my trade in any other states in the country, especially so if that place has no reciprocity with New York State.  

As simple as a driver's license, which is almost universally acceptable. Almost because it is still accepted, honored and can be use in other places or countries. Yet its acceptance is only temporarily and limited within a certain period of time only. Typically you are only allowed or   given 3 months before you are required to have the license replaced if your stay is longer.

Posted by David Meador, 5/10/2010 5:22:43 AM

The air transportation industry uses a great number of quality control methods to insure good outcomes.  Certifications are just one of the methods.  Bus companies use only one driver, airlines use two pilots.  Should biomed shops use two technicians on every task?  The difference is the industries fault tolerance and its vulnerability to the bad business effects of bad outcomes.  Airplanes are a showcase of designing a device with sufficient capabilities and no excess.  That excess causes a weight penalty which is a key design parameter for aircraft.  With little redundancy and slack in the physical vehicle, other compensating factors must be assured.  Hence two pilots, certifications for maintenance, and please remove your shoes and place your belongings in the plastic tray.  The penalty for failure is a disaster with no survivors.  Every way you look at it, this is very bad.
Other industries get by on less certification simply because they can.  This may sound simplistic and maybe a little irreverent, but hospitals and car companies get bad press, which impacts sales and corporate profit, only when things have gone bad to an extreme.  This is an example of graceful failure (a pretty inappropriate adjective--but I didn't make it up).  Aircraft, in contrast, tend to fail catastrophically--one second straight and level, the next, smoking hole in the ground.
The hospital industry has a lot of very intelligent and dedicated people working in it and patients tend to get better given a reasonable assist.  Hospitals, therefore, have a great deal of fault tolerance and don't normally fall out of the sky.  Another factor is that, in the last 30 years, a great deal of attention has been paid to increasing the reliability of medical equipment from design to repair.  Many types of equipment just will not work if not properly repaired.  This reduces the need for perfect repair and maintenance interventions.  However, some medical devices are critical and the wise manager demands that only qualified personnel be allowed to work on them.  Devices like balloon pumps and anaesthesia machines come to mind.  No amatuers here, please!
Stringent quality control methods tend to appear where they are needed--usually after some high profile sentinal event.  It is my contention that the medical industry is not as brittle as some other industries.  The airlines have an excellent safety record, but so do hospitals, in spite of less stringent controls on some areas.