HEALTH SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL WORKFORCES
WORKING GROUP REPORT
TO HEALTH WORKFORCE NEW ZEALAND
SUBMISSIONS ANALYSIS
Executive summary
Health Workforce New Zealand (HWNZ) was established by the New Zealand Government with a mandate to lead and coordinate the planning and development of New Zealand’s health and disability workforce. HWNZ aims to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose, high quality and motivated health workforce that keeps pace with clinical innovations and the growing needs and expectations of the New Zealand public.
The science and technical workforce is an integral part of our health workforce. In line with its mandate and aims, in August 2011, HWNZ established a working group to consider and prepare a report on what we want our science and technical workforce to look like in the future. The working group’s report was released in March 2012.
The report and subsequent feedback led to the next phase of HWNZ’s project to improve coordination across the health science and technical workforce in relation to education, training and workforce planning. The Health Science and Technical Workforces Phase 2 Working
Group (the Working Group) was established in October 2012 to follow on from the Phase 1 working group’s framework.
The Phase 2 working group developed a multi-disciplinary education framework (the
Framework) for the health science and technical professions, which was considered likely to be suitable for allied health professions as well. The Framework will provide flexibility and adaptability in health science and technical education, training and career pathways.
The Working Group presented its Framework in a proposal paper, Framing the Future.
Comment on the proposal was sought from the health and health education sectors from
June to September 2013. This paper presents the analysis of the feedback to Framing the
Future.
Responses to the proposed Framework were generally positive. Most respondents saw benefits of the Framework and wanted to see a more detailed view of how it would work.
Phase 3 of this project will aim to look more specifically at how core skills could be mapped across professions to identify those elements that were common to the professions and those that were profession specific, and how the Framework could manage to balance the components.
More on the Phase 2 report on our website
Background
Health Workforce New Zealand (HWNZ) was established by the New Zealand Government with a mandate to lead and coordinate the planning and development of New Zealand’s health and disability workforce. HWNZ aims to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose, high quality and motivated health workforce that keeps pace with clinical innovations and the growing needs and expectations of the New Zealand public.
The science and technical workforce is an integral part of our health workforce. This workforce comprises over 20 occupational groups of regulated and unregulated professions.
Many of the science and technical occupational groups are small, and many often work in isolation.
New Zealand’s ability to meet future demand for science and technical workforces is compromised by the size of some of the workforces and the level of training required for some professions and by the exclusion, in some cases, of the relevant science and technical professions from the development of service delivery plans.
Framing the Future submissions analysis

Phase 1
In line with its mandate, HWNZ established a small working group, for around four months, to consider and report on:

what we want our science and technical workforce to look like in the future

how workforce planning might be improved across the science and technical professions and in relation to workforce planning in other health professions.
The Health Science and Technical Workforces (Phase 1) Working Group’s (the Phase 1
Working Group’s) Report to the HWNZ Board (the report) was compiled from September to
December 2011.
The report was intended as a starting point for discussion in the health and health education sectors and gaining information about:

the co-ordination of workforce planning across the health science and technical workforce

identification of the health science and technical professions

sector views on the key aims and principles that should underpin any health science and technical workforce education, training and workforce planning framework.
The report was released in March 2012, with a set of related questions. A report on the feedback and proposing Phase 2 of this work was released in July 2013.
Phase 2
The Health Science and Technical Workforces (Phase 2) Working Group (the Working
Group) was established in October 2013 to follow on from the Phase 1 Working Group’s work and develop a multidisciplinary education framework. The Working Group members are listed in Appendix 1.
The provision of future patient-centred sustainable health care is dependent on a health workforce equipped with the skills and knowledge to provide effective and efficient services in a constantly changing environment. To achieve this, we need an education framework for the allied health, health science and technical sectors that is adaptable and which enables flexibility in current and future career choices.
The Working Group developed a multi-disciplinary education framework (the Framework).
On 28 June 2013, a proposal paper, Framing the Future was released, outlining the
Framework.
The Framework supports those entering the workforce for the first time by providing them with a qualification which includes core skills and competencies, occupational domain skills and competencies, and discipline-specific skills and competencies.
The Framework also supports those who have already completed an initial qualification in health sciences and/or technology, to change their career direction by completing the required occupational domain skills and/or specialist competency requirements without necessarily having to undertake a whole new qualification. If a person does need to undertake a new qualification, then recognition of prior learning will apply to the new programme of study.
What this means for current and future health science and technology professionals is that, following their initial qualification, they will be able to upskill or change their career direction in more efficient, effective and authentic ways.
For employers, the framework has been designed to achieve a more flexible, fit-for-purpose, future-focused workforce, with reduced costs associated with education and training.
Framing the Future submissions analysis

The Framework is designed to enable innovation in education, not limit it. The potential for innovation will be demonstrated as work is carried out to map existing education programmes and to determine how the requirements of all stakeholders can be met within the Framework.
More on the Framework on our website
Analysis
As at 10 September 2013, HWNZ had received 59 responses to the report. Appendix 2 provides a list of submitters. Respondents were asked to identify their profession, organisation and whether or not they were responding on behalf of their organisation.
Respondents could identify as being in more than one of these categories.
The respondents included:

22 from DHBs

11 from professional associations

3 from regulatory authorities established under the Health Practitioners Competence
Assurance Act

15 from tertiary education institutes

2 from a health science and technical profession college

2 from a health science and technical workers union.
Forty three respondents indicated that they were responding on behalf of their organisation or department within the organisation.
With a few exceptions, this paper provides a summary of the sector comments for each question on which feedback was sought and HWNZ comments on the feedback. The exceptions are explained as they arise in this paper. In addition, where respondents provided comments under one question that seem to relate more to another question, those comments have been incorporated under the question to which they are more appropriate.
Each of the sector comments includes a number either in the text or in brackets following the comment to indicate the number of respondents who made similar comments. In most instances, comments were made by fewer than three respondents so percentages have not been calculated. Some respondents answered only some of the questions, but all percentages are calculated on the total number of submissions received rather than the number of responses to the individual question.
Question 1
Having read the proposal do you in principle support the proposed educational Framework?
Sector comment
Sector responses to this question were divided as follows:

Yes (38)
 No, a qualified no, not for the respondent’s profession/field (6)

Uncertain (2)
Some respondents provided comments on the reasons for their answer. These comments have all been incorporated into responses to the other questions.
HWNZ comment
There is significant support from both the health and health education sectors for the
Framework.
Framing the Future submissions analysis

As indicated by the responses to the following questions, questions were raised about how the Framework would work in practice. It is clear that most respondents are keen to see the
Framework developed further, with detailed mapping of profession curricula.
Question 2
What do you consider would be the contribution to workforce development if the Framework was implemented in your professional area or area of interest?
Sector comment
The following key areas were identified as areas where the Framework proposed in Framing the Future could contribute to workforce development:

Education and training

Clinical placements and workplace experience

Workforce supply and profile

Career pathways
Fourteen respondents commented that the Framework would provide flexibility in the health science and technical education, training and workforce. Five respondents commented that the proposed Framework provides a more robust education programme, with less fragmentation than is currently the case in the health science and technical professions.
Risks were identified, including graduates lacking in depth of knowledge that would require further education or training to fill later (6).
In relation to the framework and clinical placements, four respondents expressed concern that the Framework would reduce the clinical/workplace experience for some trainees/professions (4), while two respondents expressed concern about the impact of clinical placements on the workplace.
Concern was expressed about the role of the employer in selecting trainees at the start of training (2) and the potential for an increase in the number of unsuitable trainees.
The Framework was seen by some respondents as providing a clear career and training pathway, giving students clarity about where they are heading (8). The Framework also provides better alignment between employment, registration, and education provider processes, which will benefit the employment of new staff and the development of existing staff (3).
Five respondents felt that the Framework would make little or no contribution to workforce development.
HWNZ comment
HWNZ and the Working Group are pleased that many respondents to the proposal paper saw the benefits of the Framework, even though they may also have identified potential risks and challenges, inclu ding managing clinical placements and ensuring that the Framework’s core learning base meets the education needs of the relevant professions.
The Framework anticipates that the amount of time spent in core common learning will reduce and the time spent in profession specific learning will increase across the years of a qualification. For example, in the first year, 80 percent of learning may be core learning and
20 percent profession specific learning. In the second year, this ratio may be 50:50 and in
Framing the Future submissions analysis

the third year, 10:90.
1 There will also be the potential for the ratio of core and profession specific learning to vary for different professions or domains.
Similarly, clinical placements or workplace experience can be incorporated throughout the
Framework. One scenario might be, for example, for a first year student to spend one or two blocks of time in the workplace experiencing two or more professions within a related domain. The aim would be for students at the end of the first year to understand the wider work environment. In the second and third year, the student would begin to spend more time in profession specific clinical placements.
Most respondents did not see the potential risks and challenges as reasons to not pursue the development and implementation of the Framework, but rather commented that the success of the Framework would depend on addressing those risks and challenges. HWNZ and the Working Group agree with this view.
Question 3
Would the Framework enable better work management and career development? Please elaborate.
Sector comment
Over a third of respondents (21) felt the Framework would enable better work management and career development. A relatively small number felt that the Framework would not, or was unlikely to, enable better work management and career development (9) or were unsure
(6).
A number of respondents commented that the Framework would benefit students and prospective students, through providing a better knowledge and recognition of the range of health science and technical careers and clear career pathways (9).
While still a low number, the most frequent comment was that the Framework would provide a bigger pool of potential employees (5). The following comments were the next most frequent:

Ability to commit to a specific career at a later stage of the education programme (3)

The ability to shift careers may help with workforce retention (2)

A more robust set of qualifications that allowed movement between occupational domains would enhance work management and career development (2)

The Framework provides the opportunity for some in the workforce to gain tertiary level qualifications in disciplines where this may not currently be possible (2)
HWNZ comment
The principles on which the Framework is based were recognised by many respondents.
Most of these respondents acknowledged that the Framework was likely to provide better work management and career planning, through creating more flexible, less rigid career pathways that allowed students, qualified science and technical professionals, and employers to develop new or advanced skills and competencies as circumstances require.
The Framework’s contribution to work management and career planning will be partly dependent on initial and ongoing engagement between all relevant stakeholders such as education providers, employers, professional associations, and regulatory authorities where
1 The ratios used here are examples only. Accurate ratios will be determined with future work to map education programmes to identify core and profession specific elements.
Framing the Future submissions analysis

relevant. Further development and implementation of the Framework will include engagement with these groups, relevant to specific professions.
Question 4
We expect that implementation of the Framework would reduce the cost of education and training in the health science and technical professions, for health professionals, providers and employers. What do you anticipate the cost implications would be for key stakeholders?
Sector comment
There were mixed views on the likely impact of the proposed Framework on the cost of education and training in the health science and technical professions:

Nineteen believed there would be a cost reduction

Fifteen responses believed there would be a cost increase

Five believed there was potential for costs to increase and reduce

Three believed the Framework would be cost neutral
Respondents within each of these groups indicated that whether costs increased, reduced or stay the same, costs were likely to shift (6). For example, a cost currently covered by the employer may shift to the education provider or student.
Respondents provided a range of factors they believed would influence the impact of the
Framework on the cost of health science and technical education and training. The following key factors were identified:

The cost of clinical placements and workplace experience, including the impact on existing staff and service delivery (10)

A multi-disciplinary education programme that is too generic, leading to the need for additional education/training later for most professions (3)

Cross-crediting arrangements that reduce repetition of core components of education when a person changes careers within or across domains (3)
In addition, some respondents commented on funding arrangements rather than cost. These comments included the following points:

That the proposed Framework would make better use of, or improve access to, current funding avenues such as the Tertiary Education Commission and
Careerforce (2)
 That the Government’s limit on the number of years for which a student could access a student allowance adversely impacts on the number of postgraduate students and will continue to do so (1)
HWNZ comment
There is potential for costs to both increase and decrease, and there will be some instances where costs remain the same but shift from one sector or stakeholder to another. The cost implications will vary because different professions currently have different education and training programmes and funding arrangements. These will need to be considered as specific professions are mapped and aligned to the Framework.
There are likely to be some initial increased costs associated with implementing the
Framework. We expect implementation to be a phased approach. Tertiary education providers and professions could align implementation to existing qualification and education programme review schedules over several years.
Framing the Future submissions analysis

Cost effectiveness is an important aspect of the Framework, but implementation of the
Framework and cost effectiveness should not be at the expense of the quality of education programmes for the health science and technical professions.
Question 5
Please comment on the occupations in the health sector that you consider this Framework could apply to.
Sector comment
There was no clear consensus on which occupations should be included within the
Framework. However, a reasonable proportion supported the list prepared for the previous health science and technical workforces report as a good starting point or identified occupations included in that list (22).
The place of allied health in the Framework received the most comment from respondents
(13). Eight respondents thought allied health professions should be included in the
Framework, two (2) thought they should be excluded and two (2) thought that some allied health professions would fit within the Framework but others would not. In addition, one respondent noted that some allied health professions, such as social workers, worked outside the health sector.
Other comments of note included the following:

Nursing should be incorporated into the Framework (3)

Exclusion of medical physicists, biomedical engineers or biomedical technicians (2)

Two respondents commented on audiology: one that audiology should be excluded from the Framework and one that audiologists should be excluded but audiometrists could be included
There were also comments relating to which domain particular professions should sit within.
The most frequently noted one was that cardiac sonography should sit within clinical physiology (3).
HWNZ comment
There continues to be debate about which professions should be included in the Framework.
The list of potential professions to include developed by the Phase 1 Working Group remains a reasonable starting point. As acknowledged during Phase 1, there will be some professions, such as medical physicists, that are unlikely to fit the Framework. There was also some debate about which domain some professions should sit within. These matters will continue to be a subject for discussion and should become clearer as detailed mapping of curricula is done. There may also be some professions that, initially, see themselves as sitting outside the Framework, but that change that view once they see the Framework in practice.
To date, work to develop a multi-disciplinary education Framework has focused primarily on the health science and technical professions but has anticipated that the Framework was likely to also be applicable to allied health professions. For this reason, the Working Group included allied health membership. HWNZ and the Working Group will now formally include allied health professions in the Framework. As with the health science and technical professions, we acknowledge that there may be some allied health professions that are not suited to the Framework.
Question 6
Framing the Future submissions analysis

The Framework is designed to be more flexible and responsive to workforce planning and stakeholder needs. How do you think this will be achieved?
Sector comment
Nearly half of the respondents to Framing the Future (24) indicated that they believed the proposed Framework would be more flexible and responsive to workforce needs. The following are the most frequent comments made in relation to how the Framework could achieve this:

Framework allows for greater collaboration between relevant stakeholders such as education providers and employers about what is needed and how many (7)

Core learning and recognition of prior learning may allow for shorter training/retraining times allowing skill shortages to be filled more quickly (3)

The ability to train some students across multiple areas will help meet changing needs, short term gaps and meeting rural needs (3)
Some respondents (4) commented that the Framework would need to keep in mind the need for international portability of education and training and international accreditation requirements, particularly in relation to Australia.
HWNZ comment
The Framework is intended to be flexible and responsive to workforce demands and career choices. Achieving this in practice will depend on careful mapping of education programmes to determine core elements. We envisage that this mapping will result in a gradually reducing ratio of core learning to profession specific elements in each year of the education programmes. Input from relevant stakeholders will be critical when this mapping is carried out and strong ongoing relationships between stakeholders will need to be established to ensure that education and employment, and regulatory requirements where relevant, are met long term.
There was some concern that the Framework proposed to reduce the length of education programmes across the board. The potential to reduce education time refers to those who already have a related qualification and choose to build on that qualification or change careers. The Framework will not reduce the length of time required for a person’s primary qualification.
Framing the Future referred to the potential for a person to gain the appropriate skills and competencies to cover more than one occupation, allowing better work management in smaller and rural regions. The Framework does not anticipate that a student will initially study for two or more professions simultaneously. Additional skills and competencies may be added at any stage after the initial qualification is gained.
Question 7
Do you think the proposed Framework would support career choice?
Sector comment
Just over half of the respondents (31) felt that the Framework would support career choice in some way. Nine respondents felt that the proposed Framework would not support career choice or would provide only limited support. Five respondents commented that they did not see that the Framework would offer any greater career choice than already existed.
Respondents identified the following influences on career choice to which the Framework might contribute:
Framing the Future submissions analysis


Raising the profile and providing a greater awareness of the range of health science and technical professions (3)

Allowing students to decide a specific profession at later stage in their education (1)
Others commented that the Framework would have less impact on career choice than the following factors:

Availability of places on courses, clinical placements and employment (2)

Cost of education to the student and student debt (1)
 A profession’s scope for ‘lateral drift’ (1)
One respondent questioned whether supporting career choice should be the driving factor for change to health science and technical education and training.
HWNZ comment
Career choice is one of the driving factors leading to the development of the Framework, but it is not the only or the most important one. It is, however, important to specifically acknowledge career choice to emphasise that the Framework is not intended to be a tool to allow employers to force an individual in to a particular career path.
Supporting individual career choice should be seen in conjunction with the heal th sector’s need for flexibility in its workforce, adapting to changing technology/skills/competencies. The
Framework provides an opportunity to balance a range of aspects, including personal career choices, workforce supply and demand, models of care, technology, and changing skill/competency requirements.
Question 8
Do you think the proposed Framework would enhance opportunities for career change?
Please explain.
Sector comment
Over half of the respondents (33) thought that the Framework would enhance opportunities for career change, while over a quarter (17) were either unsure or thought the Framework would not enhance opportunities for career change.
Recognition of prior lear ning was a common theme in respondents’ answers to this question.
Over a third of respondents (20) commented on the importance of recognition of prior learning to encourage interest in science and technical careers, support career change, and reduce ‘wasted’ time in repeating learning.
HWNZ comment
Achieving the Framework’s potential to provide opportunities for career change, and for being flexible and responsive, will depend on key elements, such as recognition of prior learning and accurate mapping of p rofessions’ learning and workplace requirements.
Engagement with relevant stakeholders, including employers, educators, professional associations, and, where relevant, regulatory authorities will be key to ensuring these elements are addressed as the Framework is applied to specific professions.
Question 9
Is there anything you would like to add to inform the development of the proposed
Framework?
Sector comment
Framing the Future submissions analysis

Sector responses to this question can be divided into the following broad categories:

The Framework strategy and direction
 The Framework’s detail

Quality and safety

Work readiness
The Framework strategy and direction
This aspect of the Framework received the most responses under this question (28).
However, in most instances, each comment was made by just one or two respondents.
The following were the exceptions:

The importance of input from all relevant stakeholders throughout the development, implementation and ongoing, long term delivery of the Framework. Stakeholders were identified as including education providers, employers, regulatory authorities, professional associations (10)

Development of the Framework needs to be aligned with related work, particularly by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and Careerforce (4)

Whether there is evidence to suggest a need for change or that the Framework will achieve its aims (5)

The development of the Framework should not delay or disrupt the development and delivery of courses now (2)
The Framework detail
Respondents recommended a number of changes or corrections to the Framework or to content within the proposal paper. The most frequent recommendations related to amending or adding detail to Figures 1 and 2 in Framing the Future to better reflect occupations, their domains and levels (4).
Quality and safety
Some respondents were clear that any education framework must maintain quality and safety. Poor quality education and training would adversely impact on patient safety (5).
Work readiness
Nine respondents commented on the Framework and the work readiness of graduates.
Some respondents were concerned that smaller professions may struggle to manage clinical placements, particularly if a profession that is currently trained on-the-job became an academic programme with clinical placement blocks (3).
Other comments included the following:
 Would clinical placements be in a student’s specific profession area? (1)

Work readiness would depend on the amount of clinical exposure (1)

Framework is unclear on how it will achieve work readiness through clinical placements (1)

Exposure to the clinical environment contributes to patient safety (1)

Regional training hubs should manage clinical placements and establish relationships with tertiary training providers (1)
HWNZ comment
Phases 1 and 2 of this project were intended to provide a broad, high level view of a multidisciplinary education framework. As the Framework is applied to specific professions, with mapping of existing education programmes and the skills and competencies required in the
Framing the Future submissions analysis

workplace, relevant stakeholders will be brought together. Extensive stakeholder engagement at that stage will also ensure that quality and safety is maintained.
We acknowledge that the Framework, in its current broad overview form, will be amended and refined as the detailed work of mapping programmes begins. The Framework is a ‘living document’ that will be adapted to meet the needs of existing and new professions, as well as of the changing health and education environment.
HWNZ and the Working Group have met with Careerforce to discuss our respective projects relevant to the allied health, science and technical professions. The Framework and
Careerforce’s qualifications review share similar principles and directions. Further development and implementation of the Framework will ensure that the Framework aligns with Careerforce’s education structure so that career entry points and pathways are clear through all education levels and regulated and unregulated health professions.
Implementing the Framework will take time and is likely to be undertaken incrementally. In the meantime, reviews of existing education programmes and the development of new education programmes must continue. The Framework, and Careerforce, both provide a clear signal of the direction in which health professional education is moving. This direction should be taken into account in education programme reviews or development. We are aware of at least one profession that is developing an education programme that aligns with the principles and direction of the Framework to ensure a smooth transition into the
Framework in the future.
Responses to Framing the Future indicated quite a high level of uncertainty about how clinical placements and workplace experience would be managed under the Framework.
Currently, different professions have different arrangements and requirements for clinical placements and workplace experience. The details of clinical placements and workplace experience will be determined as part of the mapping of education programmes and workplace skills and competency requirements. HWNZ does provide an assurance that the
Framework is not intended to reduce the amount of clinical and workplace experience trainees receive. Profession-specific experience will remain a key element of the Framework and employers will remain responsible for the employment of trainees as they are currently.
Regional training hubs are already expected to take allied health, science and technical workforces into account in workforce planning. The Fr amework’s collaborative approach that relies on strong engagement between key stakeholders will support the regional training hubs in their workforce planning roles.
Question 10
What do you see as the challenges in the implementation of the proposed Framework? Do you have any solutions to solving these?
Sector comment
Respondents saw getting buy-in from all relevant parties as one of the main challenges to implementing the Framework (18). Stakeholders were identified as education providers, employers, regulatory authorities, professional associations, and unions. The primary solution was seen to be wide consultation (13).
Other challenges identified included the following:

Governance and monitoring the Framework (6)

Managing the impact on the existing workforce and existing education providers (6)

Cost and funding (5) - one respondent proposed that programme design could be linked to funding
Framing the Future submissions analysis


Balancing a shared approach with a large number of professions and stakeholders to accommodate (5)

Student/trainee numbers and geographic isolation (4) - distance learning was suggested as a key solution by some (2), while another respondent was less enthusiastic about the expansion of distance learning (1)

Employment opportunities and matching graduates (2)

Logistics of implementing change across a wide range of education programmes (4)

Alignment with the Health Practitioner Competence Assurance Act 2003 (3)
HWNZ comment
We acknowledge the potential challenges to implementing the Framework identified by respondents. These comments will assist with future implementation planning.
As indicated previously in this document, implementation of the Framework will be incremental, and will begin with detailed mapping of education programmes and workplace skills and competency requirements for a few specific professions. HWNZ will be seeking
‘early adopters’ of the Framework.
Question 11
Please include any other relevant comments not covered in the above questions.
Sector comment
With the broad range of matters raised in the responses to the preceding questions, many of the comments on this question could be incorporated elsewhere. Among the remaining comments were the following suggestions on what the next step in this project might be: mapping existing qualifications and levels (3) and develop a systems model demonstrating how the different occupational groups relate to each other (1).
Other comments included the following:

Could a profession choose not to be part of the Framework? (1)

The Framework should be introduced incrementally or as a pilot (1)

Has making it easier for New Zealanders to train via existing programmes in Australia
(possibly through distance learning) been considered? (1)
HWNZ comment
Again, detailed mapping of education programmes and workplace skill and competency requirements will provide the opportunity to address most of the issues raised about the
Framework and how it would work in practice.
Question 12
Would you be willing to actively engage in the progression and implementation of this proposed Framework? If so, we invite you to provide your contact details.
HWNZ comment
Over half of respondents to Framing the Future (32) provided contact details. These details have been noted by HWNZ and will be used as appropriate in the next phase of this project.
Appendix 1: Working group members

Ruth Anderson (Chair) - Health Workforce New Zealand

Alison McEwen - Capital and Coast District Health Board

David Robiony-Rogers - Capital and Coast District Health Board

Julia Metcalfe - Auckland District Health Board
Framing the Future submissions analysis


Gloria Crossley - Taranaki District Health Board

Wendy Horne - Unitec Institute of Technology

Jerry Shearman - Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology (CPIT)
Appendix 2: List of submitters
Name Profession/position Organisation
Dr Vanessa Beavis Specialist anaesthetist
Kathy Dryden Sonographer
Christine King
Janice Mueller
Martin Necas
Occupational therapist
Associate Director of Allied
Health
Physiotherapist
Self-employed management consultant
Diagnostic medical sonography
Sandra Wilkinson &
Willem Fourie
-
-
Pru Murray
Marie Russell
Rosey Wilson
Holly Perry
-
Glynne Morresey
Priti Kansara
Dr Kirk Reed
Ellen Nicholson
Siobhan Molloy
Nursing
Clinical dialysis technician
Clinical respiratory physiologist
Occupational therapy
Waikato DHB
Private practice partner
Auckland University teaching fellow
Manukau Institute of
Technology
NZ Board of Dialysis
Practice
Laboratory managers
Manager Physiology Services
Trained as physiotherapist
Canterbury Health
Laboratory
Sleep physiologist Auckland DHB
Perioperative nurse educator Bay of Plenty DHB
DHB
AUT Medical laboratory scientist
Lecturer
Physiotherapist
Assessor, Vision & Hearing
Screening Qualification
Vision & Hearing technician
DHB
Self employed
DHB
University
Occupational therapy
Cardiac physiologist
Auckland DHB
DHB
Capital & Coast DHB
Waipiata Consulting
NZ Association of
Occupational Therapists
Canterbury DHB Sharron
Matthewson
Catherine Cooney
Marilyn Rimmer
Holly Perry
Clarke Thuys
Registered nurses
Health sector consultants
Medical laboratory scientist
Lecturer
Perfusionist
Kowhai Health
Associates
AUT
Australian & NZ College of Perfusionists
Careerforce Gill Genet
Daria martin
Angela Morgan
Workforce training & development
Cardiac sonographer
Cardiac clinical physiologist
DHB
Voluntary professional
On behalf of organisation
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Framing the Future submissions analysis

Name Profession/position Organisation
-
Gregory Seymour
Sharron
Matthewson
-
Dentistry
Cardiac physiologist registration body
Professional association
Union, PSA
Dean, Faculty of
Dentistry, Otago
University
Society of
Cardiopulmonary
Technology (NZ)
Massey University Associate
Professor Rachel
Page
Dr Sally Lark
Jim Clarke
Fiona Riddell
Peter Gilling
Kylie Parry
Max Kerr
Sue Walbran
Associate
Professor Howell
Round
Ken Beechey
Lecturers
Cardiac physiologist
Head of School
Anaesthetic technician
Consultant
Auckland DHB
Bay of Plenty DHB
NZ Anaesthetic
Technicians Society
Metro Group (education providers)
Regional Director of Training TAS Central
Medical physicist / biomedical engineer
Australasian College of
Physical Scientists &
Engineers in Medicine
Medical Laboratory science NZ Institute of Medical
Laboratory Science
Radiation therapy
Pro Vice Chancellor
Otago University
Otago University
Karen Coleman
Professor Peter
Crampton
Ellen Woodcock Cardiac physiologist DHB
University
CPIT Jerry Shearman
Judith Brown
Isla Nixon
Heather Alston
Kim Fry
Educators
Medical physicist
Radiation therapy
Director Allied Health
Penny O’Leary
Associate professor
Mary Nulsen
Robert Lane
Noelle Bennett
Mary Doyle
Mary Doyle
-
Dr Grant
Searchfield
Executive Dean
Programme Director, Medical laboratory science
Radiation therapy
Clinical Team Leader -
Education
Allied Health Director
Charge Radiation Therapist
Medical laboratory science
Anaesthetic technology
Medical imaging
Radiation therapy
-
Audiology
Lecturers
Auckland DHB
Auckland DHB
Whanganui &
MidCentral DHBs
UCOL
University
Auckland DHB,
Radiation Therapy Dept
DHB
Medical Sciences
Council of New Zealand
Medical radiation
Technologists Board
DHB
Auckland University,
Audiology
On behalf of organisation
Yes
Yes?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Framing the Future submissions analysis

Name Profession/position
Professor Peter
Thorne
Rob Halliman Radiation therapy
-
Philip Grant
-
Allied health, science & technical
Dr Rob Carpenter Consultant anaesthetist
Mark Goodhew
Karen Allen
Kevin Ellyett
Michael Legge
-
David Jaggard
Dentist
Audiology
Respiratory physiologist
Biomedical scientist
Osteopathy
Occupational therapy
Organisation
Radiation Therapist
Advisory Panel
APEX
Allied Health Aotearoa
NZ
NZ Society of
Anaesthetists
NZ Dental Council
NZ Audiological Society
Auckland DHB
University of Otago
Osteopaths NZ
Southern DHB
On behalf of organisation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Framing the Future submissions analysis