Quality Panels to Evaluate Training Posts

Introduction

A pilot scheme ran between November 2009 and December 2010 to evaluate the process. Thereafter, panels will meet annually. The next GMC trainee survey is run annually. We hope the panels will meet in the month or two after the GMC trainee survey results are released.

Frequency of Panel Meeting

Annual

Composition of Panel to Evaluate Training Posts

Lay advisor (Chair)
Training Programme Director or
Associate Patch Dean (Primary Care)
Specialty Tutor (not from the same Department or Practice as the Training Programme Director or Patch Dean).
Trainees (in general terms, one trainee should be from the early years of the training programme ST1-3, and another trainee should be from the later part of the training programme ST4-6).
Trainees and trainers should be equally represented
Training Programme Director or Head of School from a non related programme. The external input may be beneficial to the panel. It will also provide a degree of faculty development for the external participant.

Evidence Reviewed

GMC Surveys Current and Past to determine progress
Deanery End of Placement Surveys 2009/2010
Trainee input
Soft intelligence from ARCP/RITA process
The preceding Annual Report to the Deanery from the Training Programme Director

Other Evidence that could be Considered

Local surveys within the programme
Results of external visits to the programme from GMC, another training programme or a visit from a Royal College.

Scrutiny and Reporting

The process is training programme based. We have approximately 40 training programmes within the Severn Deanery. Each Training Programme Director should feed their results to the Deanery Quality Team.

Reporting

The Panel to Evaluate Training Posts will report to the local Specialty Training Committee through the Training Programme Director who sits on the panel. The Deanery Quality Team will review the gradings of the panel. The Deanery Quality Team will disseminate the gradings for each programme back to Directors of Medical Education, Training Programme Directors and Heads of School.

The Training Programme Director and the Director of Medical Education will include the grading of their training posts in their annual report.

Evaluation of Training Posts

The training posts will be graded as follows:

A         Excellent (Green)
B         Satisfactory (Green)
C1       Action and feedback (Amber)
C2       Action soon (Amber)
D         Unsatisfactory and immediate action (Red)

These gradings map to the Annual Reports to the Deanery currently based upon the NACT documentation.

In this evaluation of training posts, all training posts within a training unit will be evaluated collectively. It is not yet possible to identify posts within a 'firm' structure in a training unit.

Grading excellence is subjective. It is acknowledged that there will be debate about what defines excellence. Where a training post is graded as excellent (A), or satisfactory (B), it is important (particularly for excellent posts) to identify the factors that make them excellent, to encourage development elsewhere within the Deanery. An amber grading (C1/2) would indicate that there are a few or less critical areas for improvement. Where a post is graded as C1 (Action and feedback), C2 (Action soon), D (Unsatisfactory), the reason(s) that it has not achieved "satisfactory" status need to be given. With regard to gradings that are red, a red grading (D) would be given because there were multiple or important areas for improvement Training posts should be evaluated broadly under the nine GMC domains.

GMC Generic Standards for Training can be found on the GMC Website.

GMC Domains

One Patient Safety

Supervision, workload intensity, handover, consent procedures, EWTR (European Working Time Regulation), (this may be contentious as some Trusts have sought derogations)

Two Quality Control, review and evaluation

Governance, local review of GMC and Deanery Surveys with trainee input.

Three Equality, diversity and opportunity

Wide access to training and participation in training, fair recruitment, programme design, job adjustment and provision of information. Adherence to all equal opportunity legislation

Four Recruitment, selection and appointment

Probably not directly relevant for Panels to Evaluate Training Posts.

Five Delivery of approved curriculum and assessment

Ability to deliver the curriculum within any department, adequate experience and competence, access to learning opportunities. Workplace based assessments, appraisal and feedback.

Six Support and development of trainees, trainers and local Faculty

Departmental induction and meetings with the Educational Supervisor, learning agreements, feedback, career advice and support. Work intensity, bullying, audit, organized educational activity, generic professional skills and counseling. Study leave and academic opportunities

Seven Management of education and Training

Accountability at all levels of training; Deanery; Schools; Programmes and Trusts. Adherence to GMC standards

Eight Educational resources and capacity

Educational capacity of the unit offering training. Facilities including internet access and library. Suitable ratio of trainers: trainees; adequate provision of training time for trainers

Nine Outcomes

Evidence of trainee progression such as examination and assessment results.

Prizes or commendations acquired by the training unit.

Example of Report Detail

Post	Site/Trust	Grade	Post Duration	Reason not "satisfactory"	Action needed	Timescale of action
Paeds	RUH, Bath	A	3 years	Superb teaching programme
Oncology	Frenchay, NBT	C1	3 years	Only attends 1 clinic per month	Ensure trainees attend 1 clinic per week	6 months
General Practice	NoHopeHouse,	D	1 year	1. Poorly supervised, sometimes no other GPs in building 2. Less than 1 tutorial per week	1. Partner always to be present 2. 2 hours protected teaching time per week	1. Immediate 2. 3 months