Annual Postgraduate School Annual Progress Report
Version 2
Postgraduate School: Medicine – North & East Yorkshire and Wes...
Dr Jon Cooper – Stroke Medicine – jon.cooper@leedsth.nhs.uk
Dr Cath Coyle – Clinical Oncology – catherine.coyle@leedsth.nh...
Local TPD and Education Sub-committee member -
Calderdale
Dr Karen Goodman * Awaiting information
Local TPD - Harrogate Dr...
Framework’ that is mapped to the nine key areas defined in the PMETB document entitled ‘Generic Standards for Training’, a...
in several Specialties, as shown in green (Appendix A), but not in particular training locations. Some insight into locali...
2. Please specify the numbers / grades of your trainees receiving remedial training
1 trainee in Dermatology – at SpR leve...
Rheumatology 16
Elderly Medicine 45
Neurology 15
Rehabilitation Medicine 5
Nephrology 19
Occupational Medicine 2
Infectiou...
JRCPTB (recently demitted from office), and which also contains full details of the training programmes as well as educati...
Liaison between other Schools (and their Heads) is being facilitated by the JRCPTB and the RCP, so that ‘good practice’ ca...
Section 3 – Self Assessment
Each ‘action required’ has been given a ‘priority’ level, as per the final column of the table...
Have a well-organised handover of patient care at
the beginning and end of each duty period.
No It was identified that tra...
Now that the School of Postgraduate Medicine has a database of all trainees and
trainers, the School will be able to take ...
their curriculum has highlighted the following concerns:
Cardiology (core): Out of 5 respondents, 2 individuals stated tha...
placement and regular review appraisal meetings?
Sign a training/learning agreement at the start of
each post?
N/A This is...
7. Training Management Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority
Follow the Dea...
Section 4 – Departmental Evaluation Summary
Please complete this for all Specialties represented within your School (or by...
Item Development Needs Evidence Particular Strengths
• An academic appointment in Nephrology
Infectious Diseases • More re...
Item Development Needs Evidence Particular Strengths
Occupational Medicine • TPD report
No PMETB data
• Small developing p...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Annual Postgraduate School Annual Progress Report

1,018 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,018
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Annual Postgraduate School Annual Progress Report

  1. 1. Annual Postgraduate School Annual Progress Report Version 2 Postgraduate School: Medicine – North & East Yorkshire and West Yorkshire Date: 23 July 2008 Report compiled by: Dr Anthony Arnold Guidance for Completion  This report is based on the currently agreed and published NACT report.  This report refers to all doctors in training posts, from F1 to Post CCT  It addresses the QAFP/PMETB’s Generic Standards for Training  All questions need to be met with a “Yes” response. Exceptions should be outlined if a “no” response is given.  Documentation should be retained at departmental/School level as evidence in support of the statements made and should be easily accessible as and when requested Completion Date and Reporting  The completed report should be submitted electronically to laura.spence@yorksandhumber.nhs.uk by the 25th July 2008.  Underpinning evidence should not be submitted, with this report, as the Deanery will request a sample of evidence following their review of the report Section 1 – Trust Details Postgraduate School Team Name and Contact Details Head of School Dr Anthony Arnold – Anthony.arnold@hey.nhs.uk or t.arnold@yorkshiredeanery.com School Manager (where applicable) Miss Julie Honsberger – j.honsberger@yorkshiredeanery.com School Administrator Miss Jane Burnett – j.burnett@yorkshiredeanery.com Programme Director (include specialty and add additional lines where necessary) Dr Phillip Batin – Cardiology – phillip.batin@midyorks.nhs.uk Dr Chris Bennett – Clinical Genetics – c.p.bennett@leeds.ac.uk Dr Mike Blackburn – Paediatric Cardiology – susan.zakar@leedsth.nhs.uk “*” Indicates work in progress Page 1 of 18
  2. 2. Dr Jon Cooper – Stroke Medicine – jon.cooper@leedsth.nhs.uk Dr Cath Coyle – Clinical Oncology – catherine.coyle@leedsth.nhs.uk Dr M Dakkak – Gastroenterology – mounes.dakkak@hey,nhs,uk Dr S Gilbey – Diabetes and Endocrinology – Stephen.gilbey@leedsth.nhs.uk Dr Jimmy Gooi – Immunology – jimmy.gooi@leedsth.nhs.uk Dr Andrew Gough – Rheumatology – andrew.gough@hdft.nhs.uk Dr Victoria Goulden – Dermatology – victoria.goulden@leedsth.nsh.uk Dr Annika Graham – Respiratory Medicine – annika.graham@cht.nhs.uk Dr Peter Hammond – GIM – peter.hammond@hdft.nhs.uk Dr David Heseltine – Elderly Medicine – david.heseltine@york.nhs.uk Dr Stuart Jamieson - Neurology – stuart.jamieson@leedsth.nhs.uk Dr Ruth Kent – Rehabilitation Medicine – ruth.kent@midyorks.nhs.uk Dr Andrew Mooney – Nephrology – andrew.mooney@leedsth.nhs.uk Dr Nick Scriven – Acute Medicine – nicholas.scriven@cht.nhs.uk Dr John Shepherd – Occupational Medicine – john.shepherd@leedsth.nhs.uk Dr Philip Stanley – Infectious Diseases – philip.stanley@bradfordhospitals.nhs.uk Dr Dan Stark – Medical Oncology – d.p.stark@leeds.ac.uk Dr Mike Stockton – Palliative Medicine – mikes@st-gemma.co.uk Dr Ann Tweddel – Cardiology (East) – ann.tweddel@hey.nhs.uk Dr Janet Wilson – G.U.M. – janet_d.wilson@leedsth.nhs.uk Dr David Wright – Haematology – david.wright@midyorks.nhs.uk Dr David Eadington – CMT East – david.eadington@hey.nhs.uk Dr Liz Berkin – CMT West – liz.berkin@leedsth.nhs.uk Key Lead Educators Educational Roles Name PAs in Job Plan Local TPD – Airedale Dr Andrew Pettit Yes Local TPD – Bradford Dr Badie Jacob Yes Local TPD - Dewsbury Dr Hanosage Chidambara * Awaiting information “*” Indicates work in progress Page 2 of 18
  3. 3. Local TPD and Education Sub-committee member - Calderdale Dr Karen Goodman * Awaiting information Local TPD - Harrogate Dr Umesh Sharan Yes Local TPD – Huddersfield Dr Asis Kumar Yes Local TPD – Pinderfields Dr Frank Phelan Yes Local TPD – Pontefract Dr Graham Smith * Awaiting information Local TPD – SJUH Dr Nicole Turner Yes Local TPD - LGI Dr Robert Murray * Awaiting information Local TPD and Education Sub-committee member - LGI Dr Jon Cooper Yes Local TPD – Castle Hill Dr Richard Teoh Yes Local TPD – Hull RI Dr Mo Aye * Awaiting information Local TPD – Grimsby Dr Luxy John * Awaiting information Local TPD – Scunthorpe Dr Mohammed Malik * Awaiting information Local TPD – Scarborough Dr Tim Houghton * Awaiting information Local TPD - York Dr Colin Jones * Awaiting information Education Sub-committee member Dr Peter Belfield No Education Sub-committee member Dr Liz Berkin No Education Sub-committee member Dr Catherine Dickinson No Education Sub-committee member Dr Mounes Dakkak No Please see attached for list of Educational Supervisors Section 2 – Executive Summary Your Internal QC Procedures What is your QC Management structure (for example QC Committees, named contacts, accountabilities)? What are your procedures for collecting and reviewing information and ensuring the quality of your posts/programmes against the standards set out by PMETB and your locality office? The Yorkshire School of Postgraduate Medicine has appointed a Quality Control Sub-Committee (Chairman – Dr Greg Reynolds, Dr Mike Stockton and Dr Phil Batin), which reports to the School Management Committee. It has produced an ‘Educational Quality “*” Indicates work in progress Page 3 of 18
  4. 4. Framework’ that is mapped to the nine key areas defined in the PMETB document entitled ‘Generic Standards for Training’, and these are both linked to the School website. The sub-committee is finalising details of the data set that is to be maintained by the Training Programme Directors (TPDs), much of which needs to be collated in a prospective fashion (eg exam outcomes, consultant appointments), and which should therefore be fully available for the next round of annual TPD and School reports. With regard to visits to training locations (both routine and ‘triggered’), an agreed Deanery policy is awaited. With regard to questionnaire data, the recently completed spreadsheet of all trainees and trainers will facilitate communication with and encouragement of all parties, in an attempt to increase the response rate to the next PMETB survey. In addition, the School is convinced that an important tool to obtain more specific locality feedback is the trainee placement questionnaire, this data providing triangulation with the data derived from the PMETB survey and the RITA/ARCP process. It would like to extend the Deanery questionnaire that we trialled for CMT to all medical specialties, to make the process mandatory and to build-up profiles of each training location over a period of time – this has recently been actioned. The delay in appointing administrative support for the School, and the short time-line available for this year, has restricted the available data. However, this is expected to be fully available in future years. Summary of PMETB National Trainer and Trainee Surveys 1. Please summarise your Specialty/ies key strengths and development needs identified from the PMETB National Survey Summary of Surveys The response rate to the PMETB trainer survey was very low, and the survey gives little insight into the particular problems of our medical specialties and training locations. With the recent appointment of identifiable administrative support for the School we have prepared a spreadsheet of all trainers, and propose to contact them directly, to establish (amongst a range of issues) their training status and needs. a) Key Strengths The PMETB data analysis by programme (see Appendix A), and by training location (see Appendix B) indicates satisfactory results in most instances – more than might be anticipated on statistical grounds alone. Strengths have been demonstrated “*” Indicates work in progress Page 4 of 18
  5. 5. in several Specialties, as shown in green (Appendix A), but not in particular training locations. Some insight into locality strengths emerged from the Deanery Placement Questionnaire (Appendix C). Qualitative data pertaining to specialty strengths has emerged from the TPD reports (section 4). b) Areas of Concern The survey results are analysed according to the nine PMETB domains in Section 3 of this document. We have used a three-point grading system to rate the degree of concern for each point – ranging from the highest priority (requiring early attention), through an intermediate grade (requiring further close observation) to a lower priority (unlikely to be significant). This acknowledges the certainty that a survey of numerous trainees in a large number of specialties will inevitably identify some statistical outliers, but attempts to ensure proper attention to the important issues. Two areas require specific comment, the first being that of patient safety, and involving a small number of trainees in CMT posts (Neurology). Unfortunately we cannot identify the specific trainees or posts from the survey, but the relevant TPD will be asked to make discreet and informal further enquiry, with subsequent appropriate remediation, if possible. The second specific area of concern relates to BULLYING. It should of course be emphasised that this only involves a very small number of trainee responses, and that there may or may not be legitimate underlying grounds for complaint, but the School is anxious to respond appropriately. The details are found in Section 3.3, and Appendices A and B. It is proposed to investigate this further in all instances by discreet enquiry by the TPD concerned, to promote discussion in the relevant STCs, to communicate concern to all Educational Supervisors and to closely monitor the situation by means of future questionnaires and site visits. One of the STC’s involved (medical oncology) has already convened a meeting with the specific purpose of addressing this concern. A further concern has arisen from the RITA process regarding a single site / consultant, and this is currently being addressed by the local Medical Director and an Associate Dean. c) Development Needs The development needs for the medical specialties do not really emerge from the PMETB survey results, other than the obvious requirements to engage more fully with our Educational Supervisors, to address their training needs, and to encourage a higher level of response to future surveys. Individual specialty needs do arise from the TPD reports, collated in Section 4, and are summated in the later section entitled ‘Future Scanning and Assessment of Risks’ “*” Indicates work in progress Page 5 of 18
  6. 6. 2. Please specify the numbers / grades of your trainees receiving remedial training 1 trainee in Dermatology – at SpR level 3 trainees in Haematology – at SpR level 1 trainee in Occupational Medicine – at SpR level 2 trainees in Gastroenterology were receiving remedial training in 2007, but have since obtained a RITA C (16.5.08) and a RITA G (15.1.08). 1 trainee in Nephrology was receiving remedial training in 2007, but has since obtained a RITA C (13.6.08). Information from recent ARCPs is still being processed and is therefore not yet available. Your Training Outcomes Please specify the numbers/grades of your trainees, and summaries the training outcomes. This should include ARCP and examination results, and other outcome measures as appropriate, including progress against curriculum units and data on trainees requiring remediation. Currently this is only available in piecemeal fashion, due to the absence of clear guidance for the TPDs, and the short notice for the provision of this report. This is in the process of being addressed, and with the support of the newly-appointed Administrative support staff, the TPDs are to be provided with a detailed list of outcomes to be collated prospectively. This will include attendance figures for educational meetings, examination outcomes, ARCP/RITA outcomes and consultant appointments. The small numbers of trainees requiring remediation are listed above. Current trainee numbers: CT1/FTSTAs CT2/FTSTAs HST Posts Core Medical Training 92 116 0 Acute G(I)M 28 Cardiology 35 Clinical Genetics 4 Paediatric Cardiology 5 Gastroenterology 31 Diabetes & Endocrinology 26 Immunology 1 “*” Indicates work in progress Page 6 of 18
  7. 7. Rheumatology 16 Elderly Medicine 45 Neurology 15 Rehabilitation Medicine 5 Nephrology 19 Occupational Medicine 2 Infectious Diseases 7 Medical Oncology 14 Palliative Medicine 12 Clinical Oncology 18 Genito-urinary Medicine 7 Haematology 19 Dermatology 10 Respiratory Medicine 36 Totals 92 116 355 Achievements/Progress on previous objectives Please report on your progress and achievements towards last year’s objectives and actions The Yorkshire School of Postgraduate Medicine has been in existence for just one year, and has had to overcome the tribulations of MTAS and the controversial selection processes, the new curricula, e-portfolios, workplace-based assessments, ARCPs, etc. Simultaneously it has had to embrace the appointment of a new Postgraduate Dean, merger with the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Deanery and the Tooke review. This has been achieved with no specific administrative support until relatively recently. It incorporates 26 training programmes and 5-600 trainees in 15 training locations. Despite these handicaps it has identified it’s ‘Core Responsibilities’, created a corresponding managerial structure and appointed training programme directors in an open and competitive fashion to new job descriptions. Several sub-committees have been created and are fully described on a comprehensive website that was described as being of a “gold standard” by the Head of the “*” Indicates work in progress Page 7 of 18
  8. 8. JRCPTB (recently demitted from office), and which also contains full details of the training programmes as well as educational material. A strong sense of identity has been created among the trainees (especially in CMT), reinforced by their regular educational meetings. A sense of ownership has developed amongst the TPDs, who have willingly engaged with the allocation process, ARCP’s, annual report production etc. Comparison with the objectives from previous years is clearly impossible, but we recognise the areas where further progress is required, and expect this report to form a template upon which future questionnaires (PMETB and Deanery) provide feedback to then measure our performance. Future Scanning and Assessment of Risks What are the expected changes and challenges for the year ahead? Our first task is to address the messages that emerge from the questionnaire feedback data presented in this report. Each TPD will receive a report from myself that details the overall performance of the School, but especially the perceived difficulties within their own programme – and they will be expected to cascade this down through their Training Committees. Particular attention is to be paid to the issue of bullying, as outlined in earlier sections. With the opportunity provided by the identification of dedicated administrative support, the quality management processes must become more robust with prospective collection and collation of appropriate data. Specific advice is to be issued to TPDs regarding this. At the same time, full engagement with the Educational Supervisors is essential – this has not occurred thus far. They need to be appraised of all issues that arise from the questionnaire feedback, and their own training needs must be addressed. The recent establishment of an accurate database should facilitate this need. Integration with the School of Medicine based in Sheffield is an aspiration – preliminary discussions have already been held, and areas of mutual support and co-operation agreed. The development of three locality offices (Sheffield, Leeds and Hull/York) and the appointment of three Deputy Deans (one with a lead role relating to the School of Medicine), will probably stimulate the development of locality-based programmes for the larger medical specialties. “*” Indicates work in progress Page 8 of 18
  9. 9. Liaison between other Schools (and their Heads) is being facilitated by the JRCPTB and the RCP, so that ‘good practice’ can be shared. There are moves to co-ordinate national selection processes, whilst retaining strong local involvement. The Yorkshire School of Medicine recognises the need to incorporate more distance-learning into the educational programmes, with the increasing challenges of the EWTD. It hopes to blend this into the existing programmes that bring trainees together for inter-active learning, and to take advantage of the experience and resources that already exist in the Sheffield School. We have also engaged with the DH initiative (‘e-learning for health’) called ACUMEN, and are likely to be the main pilot site from September of this year. Our Education sub-committee is seeking to maximise the potential benefits of the devolution of the Study Leave budget to the School, by developing a strategy and guidelines. Similarly, we wish to provide more of our training on an ‘in-house’ basis – thus depending less on expensive external agencies.The medical specialty development needs (from Section 4) contain common themes, which include the need to strengthen the processes of specialty Induction, a task that is already in hand. Also, many specialties identify the need to strengthen programmes in Hull, or to develop links with Sheffield, much of which should become achievable with the appointment of Deputy Deans and the creation of locality offices. Thirdly, some programmes highlight a need to improve research opportunities. The above list of expected changes and challenges is not necessarily complete, but is indicative of the direction of travel that is currently envisaged. In addition to the help and support of our trainees and trainers, special thanks are due to Julie Honsberger (Specialty Schools Manager) and Jane Burnett (Specialty Schools Administrator) who have provided extensive support in the production of this report. Your response will form part of the Deanery action plan to meet the requirement of PMETB’s Quality Assurance Framework. “*” Indicates work in progress Page 9 of 18
  10. 10. Section 3 – Self Assessment Each ‘action required’ has been given a ‘priority’ level, as per the final column of the table. Definition for each priority level: Priority 1: HIGH PRIORITY – Immediate action deemed necessary. Priority 2: INTERMEDIATE PRIORITY – Immediate action not deemed necessary – for closer further observation. Priority 3: LOW PRIORITY – Not considered to be a significant problem. 1. Patient Safety – Do all trainees Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority Know who to call for help at all times and is that person accessible? No The PMETB Survey results in relation to Clinical Supervision are generally satisfactory, however both Diabetes & Endocrinology (core level) and Respiratory Medicine (core level) are negative outliers. In Diabetes & Endocrinology, 2 out of 10 respondents indicated that they didn’t always know who was providing clinical supervision when they were working, but said there was usually someone they could contact if they needed help. In Respiratory Medicine, 4 out of 16 respondents indicated that they didn’t always know who was providing clinical supervision when they were working, but said there was usually someone they could contact if they needed help. One individual out of the 16 respondents indicated that they were left without help at times. Action required: The Heads of CMT have been made aware of these issues and have been asked to monitor the situation. There were satisfactory results for all other medical specialties. 2 Take consent appropriately? No The PMETB Survey results indicate that in relation to Diabetes & Endocrinology (core level), based on ten responses, 1 respondent is asked daily to obtain consent for procedures which they do not carry out themselves, 1 respondent is asked weekly and 1 is asked occasionally. In Respiratory Medicine (core level), based on sixteen responses, 1 respondent is asked daily to obtain consent for procedures which they do not carry out themselves, 5 respondents are asked weekly, 4 are asked monthly and 3 are asked occasionally. Action required: The Heads of CMT have been made aware of these issues and have been asked to monitor. There were satisfactory results for all other medical specialties. 2 “*” Indicates work in progress Page 10 of 18
  11. 11. Have a well-organised handover of patient care at the beginning and end of each duty period. No It was identified that trainees in Neurology (core) do not have a well-organised handover. All three respondents indicated that handover before night duty was informal. Two respondents indicated that after night duty the handover was informal, and 1 respondent said it was non-existent. Action required: The Heads of CMT have been made aware of these issues and have been asked to monitor the situation. There were satisfactory results for all other medical specialties. 2 Promote patient safety No Whilst all trainees have a role to promote patient safety, 1 trainee in Neurology (core) has indicated that they are forced to deal with clinical problems beyond their competence and 2 individuals have indicated that they are being supervised by someone who they feel isn’t capable to do so. This obviously raises patient safety issues. Action required: The Heads of CMT have been made aware of these issues and have been asked to monitor the situation. There were no other negative outliers in any other medical specialties. 1 Have suitable Trust standards for obtaining patient consent N/A This is a Trust responsibility; therefore the question would be better placed in the LEP Report. N/A 2. Quality Assurance Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority All doctors receive a School Induction Yes N/A All doctors on arrival attend a Departmental induction? N/A This is a Trust responsibility; therefore the question would be better placed in the LEP Report. N/A All posts comply with the Working Time Directive? No As Head of School I am not aware of any posts not complying with the Working Time Directive. Although the Survey suggests that some posts don’t always comply with WTD, there were no negative outliers in this section, and results would suggest that posts within Yorkshire are in line with those in other Deaneries. Action required: monitor and compare with future results. 2 Doctors are released for Quality inspection visits and complete PMETB Questionnaires Yes No Doctors would be released, where possible, to attend Quality Inspection Visits – although no visits have taken place as yet. 2 “*” Indicates work in progress Page 11 of 18
  12. 12. Now that the School of Postgraduate Medicine has a database of all trainees and trainers, the School will be able to take a more proactive approach in encouraging trainers and trainees to reply. Action required: School to be more proactive in future to encourage trainees and trainers to reply. 3. Equality & Diversity Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority The number of reports of bullying or racial, gender, disability, age or part-time discrimination is zero? No According to the PMETB survey the following specialties are negative outliers: Haematology (higher) – Other Staff Bullying Score – 2 out of 8 respondent feel bullied; 1 by a nurse and 1 by the whole culture; Infectious Diseases (higher) – Consultant Bullying Score – 1 out of three respondents feel bullied by a Consultant; Medical Oncology (higher) – Consultant Bullying Score – 2 out of 9 respondents feel bullied by a Consultant; Neurology (higher) – Consultant Bullying Score – 2 out of 9 respondents feel bullied by a Consultant; Neurology (core) – Other Staff Bullying Score – 1 out of 3 respondents feel bullied by another trainee. Please see the summary on page 5 for further details on this and actions required. 1 Those providing training have attended suitable equal opportunities training within the last 5 years No Action required: * Now that the trainers have been identified, the School is working with the Education Department to determine who requires Equal Opportunities training. 2 4. Recruitment Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority Local recruitment, selection and appointment procedures follow Deanery guidelines, ensure equal opportunities and have an appeals process? Yes N/A 5. Curriculum & Assessment – Do all trainees have: Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority Sufficient clinical and practical experience to cover No As Head of School I have not been made aware of any issues. The PMETB Survey “*” Indicates work in progress Page 12 of 18
  13. 13. their curriculum has highlighted the following concerns: Cardiology (core): Out of 5 respondents, 2 individuals stated that the practical experience they were getting in post was poor. Two individuals were not confident that they would achieve the required competencies; G(I)M (higher): There were 27 respondents. 22% indicated that they felt that the practical experience was poor. 17% were not confident that they would achieve the required competencies; Elderly Medicine (core): There were 30 respondents. 27% indicated that they felt that the practical experience was poor. 17% were not confident that they would achieve the required competencies. Action required: The School will collate PMETB Survey data and Placement Assessment Feedback data to identify individual posts that may require attention. Analysis of the Placement Assessment Feedback from CMT Trainees indicated the FTSTA2 posts in Bridlington were not suitable for training. Following investigation, it was agreed to remove these posts from Bridlington. 2 A timetable that ensures appropriate access to the prescribed training events / courses etc? Yes (No outliers) N/A Adequate opportunities for workplace based assessments? Yes It should be noted that some specialties within the School (Clinical Oncology, Immunology, G(I)M) are either awaiting for guidance from their relevant College or have only just received guidance about WBAs, therefore in the absence of College guidance they have devised their own mechanisms. N/A Regular feedback on their performance? Yes (No outliers) N/A 6. Support - Do all trainees :- Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority Have a good quality verbal induction to the placement and a useful induction pack with access to a job description? N/A This is a Trust responsibility; therefore the question would be better placed in the LEP Report. N/A Know who their personal Educational Supervisor is? Yes (Without exception) N/A Have an initial appraisal meeting at the start of a Yes (No outliers) N/A “*” Indicates work in progress Page 13 of 18
  14. 14. placement and regular review appraisal meetings? Sign a training/learning agreement at the start of each post? N/A This is a Trust responsibility; therefore the question would be better placed in the LEP Report. N/A Have a relevant and up to date learning Portfolio? No Trainees who do not have an up to date learning Portfolio are addressed at RITA/ARCP. The PMETB Survey highlighted that 8 out of 15 Geriatric Medicine (higher) trainees are not using a learning portfolio in their post. Action required: Agenda item for Geriatric Medicine STC meeting for further discussion. 2 Have reasonable access to study leave? Yes (No outliers) N/A Have adequate funding for required courses? Yes (Funds were underspent in 2007. Funding policies are currently under review by the School Education Subcommittee, now that the Study Leave Budget is about to be devolved to Schools.) N/A Have access to career advice & counselling if required? No The Deanery Careers Advisor (David Clegg) has moved on to another role and trainees, who often consulted David, no longer have this option available to them. Within the specialty structure however there is access to career advice and counselling through the Educational and/or Clinical Supervisor, and the Deanery offers external support through “Take Time”. Action required: None. 3 Have opportunities within each placement to feedback on the quality of the teaching, appraisal & induction or any other serious concerns to the School? Yes (Via the RITA/ARCP assessments, the Deanery Placement Assessment Feedback Questionnaire and the trainee representative network.) N/A Have a work load that is appropriate for their learning (neither too heavy or too light)? No As Head of School I am unaware of any workload issues being raised. The following specialties were however negative outliers in terms of ‘Work Intensity Score’: Diabetes & Endocrinology (core level) and GUM (higher level). In Diabetes & Endocrinology there were ten respondents, eight respondents who indicated that the intensity of the work was either heavy or very heavy. In GUM there were five respondents; 2 who said that the workload intensity during the day was heavy (the others felt that it was ‘about right’), and all respondents indicated that the workload intensity at night was light. Action required: The Training Programme Directors are aware of these results and can monitor the situation, but at this stage I do not feel that these outliers are necessarily indicating a problem that requires immediate action. In terms of workload intensity being light at night-time for GUM trainees, this is to be anticipated. 2 “*” Indicates work in progress Page 14 of 18
  15. 15. 7. Training Management Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority Follow the Deanery local protocol for managing Trainees in difficulty which involves a joint plan agreed with the deanery? Yes N/A The Heads of School and Programme Directors have a description of roles and responsibilities regarding education and training Yes N/A 8. Resources Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority Do all trainees have sufficient access to the library and internet? N/A This is a Trust responsibility; therefore the question would be better placed in the LEP Report. N/A Trainees have access to meeting rooms and audio- visual aids N/A This is a Trust responsibility; therefore the question would be better placed in the LEP Report. N/A 9. Standards for Trainers Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority Do all Specialty Tutors have a job description and clear accountability? No Since the inception of the School all new Specialty Tutor appointments follow a clear appointment process, job description, etc. This does not apply to those already in post however. There is clear accountability. Action required: none. 3 Have all Educational supervisors received training and updates for their educational role? No *The School has only just identified all of its Educational Supervisors, and is now in the process of validating which trainers have not received the appropriate training. Action required: The School is working with the Education Team to determine who has had training within the Deanery. Head of School to write to all Educational Supervisors – to determine training done externally. 2 Have all those involved in assessing trainees received training in the relevant assessment tools No *Training has been provided in workplace assessment, but we are still in the process of identifying individuals and the training they have done. Action required: as per above. 2 Do Supervisors and Tutors have adequate resources to fulfil their role N/A Job plans are the responsibility of the individual and local Trust, but the Deanery / School has agreed a funding allowance for Local TPDs/RCP Tutors and stated that this work needs to be incorporated into the job plan. N/A All Lead educators have attended relevant Deanery training events in relation to the education and training of trainee doctors within the last 5 years No *The School has only just identified all of its Lead Educators, and is now in the process of validating which trainers have not received the appropriate training. Action required: as per above. 2 Have a suitable job plan with appropriate workload and time N/A Job plans are the responsibility of the individual and local Trust, but the Deanery / School has stated that work should be incorporated into the job plan. N/A “*” Indicates work in progress Page 15 of 18
  16. 16. Section 4 – Departmental Evaluation Summary Please complete this for all Specialties represented within your School (or by Trust for Foundation Schools). Please draw on information or reports from a range of sources such as Programme Directors and College Tutors to inform this section. You may find that asking each Programme Director to submit an annual report, in this format, will help you. Item Development Needs Evidence Particular Strengths Acute Medicine • The provision of ‘special skills’ PMETB data TPD report • Very large, new and enthusiastic programme Cardiology (West) • Specialty induction required PMETB data TPD report • Good level of trainee involvement (including website) • Joint training programme with Hull and Sheffield Cardiology (East) • Access to advanced training • Service/training tensions PMETB data TPD report • Small, developing programme • Trainee website • Training programme Clinical Oncology • Awaiting WBA strategy from RCR PMETB data TPD Report • Greatly improved new facilities at SJUH • Strong OOPE and research • Successful appointments of trainees to consultant posts Respiratory Medicine • Evolve separate East and West programmes PMETB data TPD report • Innovative US training for pleural disease • Innovative e-learning website module Medical Oncology • Meeting with trainers to discuss bullying and other training issues PMETB data TPD report • Greatly improved new facilities at SJUH • Joint training with Manchester and Newcastle • Integration of Walport Lecturer posts Renal Medicine • Specialty induction required PMETB data TPD report • Good regional training course • Improved experience for renal biopsies “*” Indicates work in progress Page 16 of 18
  17. 17. Item Development Needs Evidence Particular Strengths • An academic appointment in Nephrology Infectious Diseases • More research opportunities • To establish a rotation (?) PMETB data TPD report • Good links with Microbiology • Good HIV training Dermatology • Consolidate training in Hull – currently a single- handed training post, so training unduly concentrated in Leeds PMETB data TPD report • Good in-patient and on-call experience (Leeds) • Excellent trainee feedback Immunology • Specialty induction required PMETB data TPD report • Small programme, close support for trainees • Good trainee feedback Core Medical Training • Educational supervisor training PMETB data TPD report • Good induction, generic teaching and trainee support Neurology PMETB data TPD report • Successful appointments of trainees to consultant posts Diabetes and Endocrinology • Specialty induction required • Heightened academic profile PMETB data TPD report Rheumatology • Specialty induction required PMETB data TPD report • Good training days GIM • TPD report No PMETB data • Education – have piloted an RCP ‘Communicating Risk’ workshop • Excellent teaching programme GUM • Need to develop other training sites – Hull currently not available PMETB data TPD report • Good KBA results “*” Indicates work in progress Page 17 of 18
  18. 18. Item Development Needs Evidence Particular Strengths Occupational Medicine • TPD report No PMETB data • Small developing programme, wishing to expand Palliative Medicine • No integration with Sheffield PMETB data TPD report • Four appointments to consultant grade • Excellent trainee feedback Haematology • TPD report No PMETB data • Good research opportunities • Good malignant haematology experience Gastroenterology • Increased integration with Sheffield PMETB data TPD report • Medicine for Elderly • Development of MSc PMETB data TPD report • Good clinical experience (including GIM) Clinical Genetics • Teaching programme • ?link to Sheffield PMETB data TPD report • Good research opportunities • Excellent PMETB trainee feedback Stroke Medicine • Very small programme • Funding difficulties TPD report • Close educational supervision Paediatric Cardiology • None • Rehabilitation Medicine • PMETB data • Excellent PMETB trainee feedback “*” Indicates work in progress Page 18 of 18

×