Purpose of the Survey
Clinical / Medical Engineering services play a critical role in the safe, effective and sustainable use of healthcare technology. There is currently no comprehensive UK-wide picture of how these services are structured, staffed, governed, assured and delivered.
This survey aims to establish a national evidence base across the full breadth of engineering services supporting healthcare technology, with equal relevance to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The findings will inform workforce development, career pathways, governance, professional standards, service models, strategic representation, benchmarking and policy across the four UK nations.
For the purposes of this survey, 'Clinical Engineering' is used as an umbrella term. It includes services operating under names such as Electrical and Biomedical Engineering (EBME), Medical Engineering, Medical Equipment Management, Medical Physics Engineering, Rehabilitation Engineering, Renal Technical Services, specialist engineering, Clinical Scientific Computing, digital/connected-device engineering and fully managed service models.
Survey design principle
The survey deliberately distinguishes three levels of responsibility because they answer different patient-safety questions:
| Level |
Core question |
Examples |
| 1. Operational Management |
Are the required controls being delivered? |
Asset records, maintenance, training, incident response, lifecycle, cybersecurity, workload, quality management systems (QMS). |
| 2. Senior Management & Organisational Governance |
Is the organisation directing, monitoring and taking accountability for those controls? |
Executive ownership, Board visibility, corporate risk, strategy, investment, workforce, outsourced services. |
| 3. Quality and Independent Assurance |
Has sufficiently independent scrutiny tested whether organisational confidence is justified? |
QMS certification/accreditation, internal and external audits, regulatory inspection, peer review, independent professional advice, AE(ME), reporting, action tracking, and closure. |
Professional registration provides assurance about the competence and accountability of individuals. It does not, by itself, demonstrate that organisational governance is effective or independently assured.
Recommended respondent model
One coordinated organisational submission is recommended. It is not necessary for an Executive Director personally to complete the survey. The coordinating respondent should, however, seek input or validation from the person best placed to answer each section where the required information sits outside their own remit.
| Role / respondent |
Primary section(s) |
Expected contribution |
| Coordinating operational/service lead |
Sections 1-5 and 6A |
Detailed knowledge of service structure, delivery, workforce and operational controls. |
| Responsible senior manager / governance lead |
Section 6B |
Validation of organisational accountability, corporate risk, strategy, resource, Board reporting and cross-organisational governance. |
|
Quality / governance / assurance lead or equivalent, where applicable
|
Section 6C |
Validation of the nature, scope, independence, reporting and follow-up of independent assurance. |
Where more than one specialist engineering service exists in different departments or reporting lines, the response should identify the principal service being described and record other relevant services separately rather than assuming a single departmental structure.
Survey contents
- Organisational structure and service scope
- Professional scope and responsibilities
- Workforce, training and career development
- Professional registration and recognition
- Service delivery models and operational pressures
- Governance, safety and assurance
- Future priorities, benchmarking and use of data
