Clinical Engineering – 2025 periodic review results

Current priority areas

• 10 Year Health Plan for England: fit for the future
• Science in healthcare: Delivering the NHS Long Term Plan – The Chief Scientific Officer’s strategy

Stakeholder feedback

Feedback collecting through the Curriculum Library survey collected between January 2024 and November 2025. All stakeholder feedback is presented verbatim.

Programme

• Risk management is a key component of being a Clinical Engineer. So much so that I think it would be beneficial to have a dedicated Training Activity relating to it. – Similarly in relation to project management
• Training provided is too varied across centres. As the specialism is trying to cover what used to be 3 sub-specialisms, impossible to hit even the “specialist” modules in one department.
• The current training activities outlined in the curriculum feel too vague, which makes it difficult to understand what is expected in practice. Including specific examples of these activities would be very beneficial. Additionally, while the curriculum has consciously moved away from strict “competencies” to accommodate differences in training centre capabilities, the current approach creates some challenges for Clinical Engineering trainees. Training activities are divided into observational, developmental, and entrustable categories. However, in Clinical Engineering, there are no entrustable training activities, whereas other specialties include activities that require trainees to demonstrate they can perform certain tasks independently.

This means that, in theory, Clinical Engineering trainees only need to complete an activity once and reflect on it, rather than showing repeated competence. While this may align with the curriculum’s flexibility goals, it could leave trainees at a disadvantage when interviewing for jobs, as they may lack evidence of practical, demonstrable skills compared to peers in other specialties.

Introducing a small number of entrustable activities—or at least activities requiring competence—could help ensure trainees develop practical skills and confidence. This would not necessarily need to replicate other specialties’ models but it would provide a stronger foundation for professional readiness.

S-CE-R1 Introduction to Clinical Engineering

• no feedback received

S-CE-R2 Introduction to Physiological Measurement

Training activities

• 5 – Training activities 5 and 6 are incredibly similar – TA 5 is for an acute environment and TA 6 is for a ward environment. Trainees have found it difficult to find clinics/measurements that are done in an acute environment that they are able to get access to. consideration should be given to merging these2 TAs to make it easier for trainees to complete.

S-CE-S1 Healthcare Technology Management

Training activities

• 3 – There is no reference to management of safety notices or the Medical Device Safety Officer (MDSO) role as part of the Healthcare Technology Management module. Competency 3 is a responsibility that would be covered by the MDSO role. Either there could be a separate competency for safety notice management or the 3 elements could be included together.
• 7 – The Training Activity says: Provide information and training to an equipment user including a patient and healthcare professional for:
  • “Off the shelf” standard UKCA marked unmodified equipment
  • Custom equipment (in house development or modified medical devices)

It seems to mean that the training activity requires at least one example of training a patient, and at least one example of training a healthcare professional (fair enough), but it is not clear whether both off the shelf AND custom equipment MUST be covered – for the type of equipment is it AND or OR. I would suggest ‘OR’ would be acceptable but the training network could be asked for a consensus. If a trainee trains a patient for custom equipment and a healthcare professional for off the shelf, I assume that clearly covers the training activity? But if the trainee trains a patient for off the shelf and a healthcare professional also for off the shelf, do they then need to find an opportunity to train either a patient or a healthcare professional on custom equipment? My opinion is that the important skill here is gaining experience training different audiences on equipment use, whether this is off the shelf or custom. The complexity of either can range from very simple to reasonably complex, so that’s not a distinguishing factor. The skill the training activity centres on is similar either way – there may be additional considerations for a piece of custom equipment but that could be considered to be covered by the training activity “Plan/scope the introduction of a non-conforming device into clinical/research use”. Another reason for suggesting ‘OR’ is that some clinical engineering services, particularly those that primarily link to the module Healthcare Technology Management, do not have a very high throughput of custom devices which can make finding ‘info/training handover opportunities’ at the right time in the training a bit challenging.

• 10 – Feels like a duplication of competencies in Patient Pathway, or at the very least that this Training Activity should sit there instead of in the HTM module.
• 10 – Unless in a specific role, physiological measurements will not be part of routine practise so it’s hard to be signed off at a second year level without spending significant time at another department. Should be done as part of the physiological measurement rotation so that “competency” isn’t required. – Seems more relevant as an OTA rather than DTA, unless in specific area of physiological measurement practise.

S-CE-S2 Analytics

Training activities

• 7 – FEA seems to be a very specific technique that is rarely used these days. Might be more appropriate to be more generic, allowing use of one of many validation techniques. Could be an expansion of rather than a separate Training Activity to HTI comp 11: Produce and test a mechanical component
• 8 – Simulate a prototype electronic circuit – This is already done as part of coursework at KCL
• 9 – All trainees have fed back that they struggled with this Training Activity and many Training Officers also struggle to advise regarding how to meet these requirements. It seems a theoretical exercise and therefore better suited to KCL especially as the principles are covered by a KCL lecture that explores this modelling. If this is deemed to be necessary as part of the skillset of developing the trainees could it be completed as a piece of coursework at KCL?

S-CE-S3 Health Technology Innovation

Training activities

• 10 – This is the same as Training Activity 8 in the Analytics module. And could be covered by KCL coursework which the trainees already complete.
• 13 – In a DMRG setting there is rarely a need to design a calibration/PPM routine because we follow the manufacturers instructions. We use activities such as risk assessing existing maintenance or training risks, or establishing PPM SOPs based upon the OEM criteria, or an appreciation of UKAS accreditation to meet this Training Activity. Could this Training Activity be broadened out?

S-CE-S4 Patient Pathway

• no feedback received

Changes made

Module level changes

Programme level changes

Rationale

Please provide an overview of the rationale for why the proposed changes are needed or why changes were not needed, with reference to stakeholder feedback.

Response

Feedback from training centres indicated that Introduction to Medical Physics and Introduction to Clinical Scientific Computing rotations were challenging to deliver in practice, and in some cases, content from these rotations was not carried forward into the specialism. Clinical Engineering have limited influence in the content of these modules, however there is scope to adopt different rotational modules.

It was identified that Critical Care Science offer an Introduction to Medical Device Management rotation. The decision was made to adopt this module in place of Introduction to Medical Physics. This provides trainees with foundational training that is directly built upon within the Healthcare Technology Management specialism. It was agreed to retain Introduction to Clinical Scientific Computing, instead of Medical Physics, as it was felt that it is more likely that Clinical engineer will encounter and work within this environment within their careers.

Introducing the Medical Device Management rotation, along side Introduction to Physiological Measurement, created the opportunity to better reflect the three historical specialisms within the rotation block. As a result, Introduction to Clinical Engineering has been reconfigured as Introduction to Clinical and Rehabilitation Engineering. Overall, these changes aim to improve the relevance and deliverability of the rotations across training centres, providing trainees with a solid foundation for their specialism training.

The current iteration of the curriculum merged the historic Clinical Engineering specialisms, pushing engineers to be innovative versatilists. However the feedback highlighted that the merged curriculum was difficult to deliver, with some training activities perceived as vague or duplicated.

The review committee was keen to retain the original principle of a unified curriculum, while aligning with guidance from the National School of Healthcare Science, which emphasised that training should focus on the knowledge and skillset required from day one as a Clinical Scientist. Therefore, the changes to the specialism modules focused on: consolidating duplicated activities across the modules, improving the clarity of training activities and enhancing the deliverability of the scheme across diverse training environments.

Healthcare Technology Innovation has undergone the most significant revisions. Multiple training activities across HTI and Analytics focused on the design and testing of mechanical/electrical components or software. These have now been consolidated into a generalised design process, independent of the chosen technology. The intention is that the trainee can follow the development of a single healthcare technology whilst drawing on the expertise of their host department.

This consolidation has created capacity within Analytics, which has incorporated statistical/analytical focused training activities from Healthcare Technology Management and Healthcare Technology Innovation.

The community feedback identified gaps in core content within Healthcare Technology Management. These are now reflected through new training activities in risk management, procurement and National Patient Safety Alerts.

There was no specific feedback for Patient Pathways, however capacity was created within the module through the consolidation of training activities. Therefore additional activities have been included to reflect the shift to community based care within the NHS.

Lastly, the feedback highlighted the lack of entrustable training activities within the curriculum. Whilst the programme is constrained by merging of specialisms and finite nature of the curriculum, a small number of entrustable activities have now been incorporated within the specialism.

Specialty Lead Editor signature: Brett Cohen
Date: 12 June 2026

Change control - completed by the school

Programme structure

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 11 June 2026

Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) mapping

• The HCPC SOPS remain mapped with the continued exception of standard 13:12 “know, appropriate to the speciality or specialities , how to position or immobilise service users for safe and effective interventions”, which is not central to practice in this specialty.

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 11 June 2026

Major change stakeholder survey

Feedback from stakeholders on the proposed major changes was collected through a survey between 15 to 28 June 2026.  All stakeholder feedback is presented verbatim.

Total respondents: 45

Respondent specialties

• Clinical Engineering: 98% (44)
• Not applicable: 2% (1)

Do these changes provide beneficial skills and knowledge to trainees?

• Yes: 87% (39)
• No: 7% (3)
• Can’t comment: 7% (3)
• Please tell us why you don’t think these changes will provide beneficial skills and knowledge to trainees
  • What is likely to be medical device management at EBME is something that I have been able to get through 2nd year placements within EBME which was highly valuable but had its own place in 2nd year where I felt it was needed for my learning. Personally I feel although medical physics may not seem directly relevant, I learnt so much through it that I was able to translate into my own practice. Within medical physics they still had workshop making custom medical devices for radiotherapy and positioning purposes as well as the documentation side of the nuclear medicine that highlighted key roles in this that I could not gain through other rotations or placements including that of EBME. I think exposure to more departments enables a more rounded approach to the training that ensures trainees take learning and translate it into the field rather than just taking everything as is. I think innovation in systems, processes and devices stems from “I saw this performed in this context but I think it has potential for this”. Overall I really enjoyed medical physics and learnt a lot, I would hope that trainees can still get some exposure in this area in some way. So whilst yes I think the curriculum change is positive, I can’t wholeheartedly say yes to this question.
  • Removing the rotation in Medical Physics is not beneficial. Introduction to Medical Device Management is part of Clinical Engineering and should not be separated out.
  • Although the changes do address some of the gaps/issues with the previous content, there is still a lot to critique regarding the Clinical Engineering curriculum. Rotations: – The TA “shadow a clinical engineer” is very generic and we recognise it does not allow the trainee to develop any skills. This is also overlapped by the TA “shadow a clinical engineer generating a clinical report”. Perhaps the general “shadow a clinical engineer” TA could be placed in the core professional foundation module where it could just say “shadow someone in your specialty and reflect”. – The TA “observe and reflect on decontamination of medical device” is again very generic and would not help the trainee develop much of anything. Perhaps the TA could be made more specific or task oriented. – There’s still quite a bit of mix-up between specialties in the rotations e.g. “Observe the use of clinical information systems” could be argued to be much more aligned with scientific computing, or even patient pathway (physiological measurement). However, this TA is within healthcare tech management. There is no guidance directing supervisors as to how to achieve this TA. Specialisms overall have improved TAs from previous content, but also appears to have a bit of unexplained mix-up between modules/specialties.

Do these changes address a need in your workplace?

• Yes: 80% (36)
• No: 7% (3)
• Can’t comment: 13% (6)
• Please tell us why you don’t think these changes will address a need in your workplace
  • We dont have rehab services and would struggle to provide this training inhouse, would have to send them to a different site. We need a larger scope
  • See above. Within Rehabilitation Engineering a rotation to Clinical Engineering and Medical Physics is valuable to the trainees. They get to see how medical physics patient pathways work as well as the use of radiation in healthcare.
  • As a large acute healthcare trust, there are a range of services, departments and specialties which can be accessed by trainees. The changes in the curriculum do not impact the workplace or any requirements we have as almost all areas can be covered by us. However, we continue to review how we can provide the best experience to trainees, especially as we have quite a few departments which do not have sufficient staff and systems in place to give a full experience for a trainee.

Would a trainee who completed this programme have a valuable role in the workforce in 3 years’ time?

• Yes: 71% (32)
• No: 7% (3)
• Can’t comment: 22% (10)
• Please tell us why you don’t think a trainee who completed this programme have a valuable role in the workforce in 3 years’ time.
  • Valuable skills, yes. No jobs.
  • There are almost no roles in the NHS right now for young scientists in engineering
  • The way this new Clinical Engineering STP is delivered makes trainees feel like a “jack of all trades but master of none”. They are almost expected to be working across 3 or 4 specialisms at a high enough level to be achieving specialism TA competency which some trainees have commented makes them feel like they are doing 2 or 3 jobs at the same time but in part-time hours. Perhaps this is just the way our Trust has chosen to deliver the programme, but the specialism TAs do make it clear trainees need to be proficient in HTM (Clinical Engineering departments), analytics (sort of computing), design/HTI and patient pathway (clinical measurements, rehab / patient facing role). The job market in the NHS has also greatly declined over the years yet there are still the same number, if not more trainees completing Clinical Engineering STP without any chance of getting a job in the NHS, at least not immediately. This appears to be a severe lapse in workforce planning.

Would your workplace be able to deliver the programme with these proposed changes?

• Yes: 67% (30)
• No: 11% (5)
• Can’t comment: 22% (10)
• Please tell us why you don’t think your workplace would be able to deliver the programme with these proposed changes
  • We would not be able to deliver the whole training programme as we are not able to currently. However in a consortium we are able to deliver training and I assume this will continue.
  • Some of the training activity requirements do not always align closely with the routine scope of practice or current workflows within the department. This can make it challenging to access meaningful opportunities to practise these activities in a real service context. Consequently, while the learning outcomes may be understood in principle, it can be harder to develop the same depth of practical experience and confidence that comes from repeated involvement in routine departmental work.
  • We dont have rehab services and would struggle to provide this training inhouse, would have to send them to a different site
  • Trainees would need to travel elsewhere as we do not have a suitable rehabilitation engineering department
  • Rehabilitation engineering would need to be at another trust

Would you feel safe if someone who completed the programme, including these changes, was involved in delivering health care for you, within their scope of practice?

• Yes: 89% (40)
• No: 0% (0)
• Can’t comment: 11% (5)
• Please tell us why you wouldn’t feel safe with someone who completed the programme, including this change, was involved within their scope of practice, in delivering health care for you
  • NA

Do you have any further comments on these proposed changes?

• Really welcome the inclusion of rehabilitation engineering in the curriculum. For the topics where 2027 curicula states “updated” e.g. Healthcare Technology Management updated, what does the update include?
• As a current trainee, the new training activities seem more achievable whilst also still getting the skills required to be a qualified Clinical Scientist.
• It is a good thing that Rehabilitation Engineering is named in a module as we are a very small part of the profession. We however have similar challenges attracting and retaining staff as well as having an aging workforce.
• I understand the logic behind dropping the Medical Physics Module, however I think it would be beneficial if the trusts delivering the training were still advised to encourage the trainee to spend a few days in physics and indeed in other departments within their trust just to increase the breadth of their experiences.
• One limitation of the programme is that some learning outcomes require experience across different engineering specialities. This can be difficult to achieve during short placements outside the host department, because engineering projects often develop over a longer period of time. As a result, it can be challenging to gain meaningful hands-on experience, follow a project through to completion, and fully embed the learning within a short rotation/placement.
• Much better encapsulates the real life needs of clinical engineering, esp in HTM
• How does this affect trainees in Wales where your CE sub-specialism is set from the beginning?
• I think there should be an additional requirement in the ‘Outline the pathway of translation for a proposed medical device innovation from conceptualisation and clinical investigation, through to the adoption of use within a healthcare organisation’ competency to map out the people within your trust’s organisational structure that would be key to this process of adoption, including within procurement at the stage of selling the device to the NHS.
• I think excluding Medical Physics from the rotations is unhelpful and limiting. Clinical Engineering and Medical Physics are often part of one department and a rotation in Medical Physics is necessary. It would cut limit STP trainees in MP and CE in the same department.
• Glad to see the addition of ‘medical device management’ to the curricula. Some departments called ‘Clinical Engineering’ carry out medical device management functions too; so not sure that this is going to get mixed up in the additional core module ? It’s not clear as to the length of ‘rotations’ 4 to 8 weeks is listed, some rotations/competencies can be achieved in a shorter timescale…. so wonder how best to quantify this.. Some STPs think they should remain on rotation for the full 8 weeks and this has caused our dept. issues in the past; when its clear they have met their competencies in far less that 8 weeks….. We also need clarity on the ‘working from home’ as suggested in the 3 year programme (see STP and NHS England website) Some STPs believe they are ‘entitled’ to work from home ‘one day per week’ i.e. 20% and this too has caused ussies in the past. Some STPs that have clinical workloads or patient clinics to support so do indeed need time and protection, but for those that are purely work-based, then this needs to be clearly spelled out as to what we mean by 20% protected time.
• I like the addition of ETAs. Slightly disappointed in maintaining a large amount of the rotational/observational TAs.
• I think introducing Medical Device Management is a positive change. Although Medical Physics was a useful rotation and gave valuable insight into areas such as MRI and CT, I often felt that as a Clinical Engineering trainee, there was limited opportunity to fully apply what we were learning compared to trainees who were specialising in Medical Physics. As most Clinical Engineering trainees will go on to work within Clinical Engineering services, I think there would be greater benefit in spending more time across the different clinical engineering specialities. A shorter rotation in medical physics is still worthwhile for the knowledge and exposure it provides, but I feel the programme would be beneficial with experience more closely aligned with our future careers. I also think the addition of areas such as Rehabilitation Engineering and Medical Device Management is particularly valuable. Not all trusts have well-established services in these areas, and some trainees may have little or no exposure to them during their local placements. Providing opportunities to experience these specialities would help trainees develop a broader understanding of the profession, gain skills that may not be available within their own trust and improve future employment opportunities. It would also help ensure trainees are exposed to the wider scope of clinical engineering.
• Removing medical physics entirely seems a drastic change, especially when so much of scientific computing relates to radiotherapy – this removes a large amount of the context behind this work. Some clinical engineers also work in radiotherapy. Change M7 is useful.
• There needs to be a stronger focus on the use of international standards throughout the curricula. These in turn support quality systems, risk management, medical device product development and are key foundational skills for STP to embed research and innovation capability into their practice. Further more there needs to be a clearer emphasis on systems engineering principles and practice. The STP programme would then align with the HSST curriculum. Further work is required to ensure training departments can cover all aspects to really bring the curriculum to life, forming consortia when necessary with other MPCE departments.
• Overall the changes are good ones, they reflect Clinical Engineering services and look like they have been written by Clinical Engineers for Clinical Engineers. Rotations: It is good to see that the Introduction to Medical Physics rotation has been removed but trainees may benefit from at least one TA to gain an appreciation of what Medical Physics is, especially as some trainees will work in Clinical Engineering departments co-located with Medical Physics and in some cases may be involved in managing equipment used in Medical Physics disciplines. This TA may be better suited to HTM. Specialisms: Broadly again, changes are good and reflective of current Clinical Engineering roles and responsibilities. Two areas not so well covered that might benefit from additional TAs or being incorporated explicitly into existing ones are: 1) gaining an appreciation of working within and under a QMS and understanding the difference between ISO9001 and ISO13485 2) practical experience of networking, connectivity and data security Impact: There will be an impact for accredited STP Clinical Engineering training centres in terms of work load. For Clinical Engineering trainees there are now 20 instead of 10 TAs to be completed and signed off. In particular this might be of concern to rehabilitation centres where it already feels like they are already stretched in terms of what can be offered. This might need to be an area of focus for the Clinical Engineering Training Officer Network to provide guidance on expectations and mitigate the potential impact. Clinical Scientific Computing (CSC) trainees: I am not sure if these changes will be transferred across to Clinical Scientific Computing (CSC). However it is worth noting that for CSC trainees the Introduction to Medical Physics module is more appropriate as increasingly CSC trainees are employed by these services. I also do not think it would be required or possible to accommodate all CSC trainees in training centres to complete the two new rotations for rehabilitation engineering and device management in full. So there may be merit in keeping the existing rotation for this group of trainees.
• S-CE-R3-0 TA7 should be ‘Clinical Engineering or Rehabilitation Engineering practice’ S-CE-R2-3 TA8 typo – guides* S-CC-R2-2 – is difficult to complete for trainees as the process from acquisition to use is often very prolonged. Could it rather be ‘Review and reflect on the procurement pathway through the acquisition of a piece of equipment, observing some activities conducted between the statement of need to use on the unit’ – the trainee then doesn’t need to oversee the entire process SE-CE-S1-3 – this change is welcomed, it was too specific and difficult before to find custom equipment to train both staff and pts on
• I like the change from having one module more focused on clinical and rehab work while one focuses on medical device management rather than medical physics specifically.
• The proposed changes seem appropriate and will improve the programme.
• No further comments.

Lead Editor response

• M1 – apply change
• M2 – apply change
• M3 – apply change
• M4 – apply change
• M5 – apply change
• M6 – apply change
• M7 – apply change
• M8 – apply change
• M9 – apply change
• M10 – apply change
• M11 – apply change
• M12 – apply change
• M13 – apply change
• M14 – apply change
• M15 – apply change
• M16 – apply change
• M17 – apply change
• P1 – apply change
• P2 – apply change
• P3 – apply change

Please provide a brief rationale for your decisions

Overall very strong support for proposed changes. Some concerns remain around deliverability, however it’s unlikely that these can be addressed whilst retaining a merged curriculum. Some concerns around the loss of the Introduction to Medical Physics rotation, however, Introduction to Medical Device Management can be delivered in a Medical Physics content, depending on how the local training centre decides to deliver the programme. Some suggestions for additional content, however as the curriculum is finite, it will be challenging to implement without losing other content. If the sentiment continues it could be implemnted via a future Annual Review.

Specialty Lead Editor signature: Brett Cohen
Date: 10 July 2026