GMC Consultation on Trainer Approval 21st June 2012

Dr Vicky Osgood Assistant Director of Postgraduate Education

Recognising and approving trainers

Progress in professionalising education • • • • • • Training the trainers (Royal Colleges etc) Professional development (Deaneries, medical schools, LEPs) Guidance and support (HEA, NACT UK, AoME) Regulatory standards (PMETB, GMC) Approval of GP trainers (RCGP, COGPED, JCPTGP, PMETB, GMC) Reviews and policy development (PMETB, Temple, Patel, MEE)

Another step • • • • • • Building on local processes, enthusiasm and investment Using existing national standards and guidance Moving on from GP trainers by identifying additional cohorts of trainers for recognition Providing support for trainers undergoing appraisal and defining their scope of practice without mandating forms of supporting evidence Paving the way for legal approval of the additional cohorts of trainers when the GMC acquires the statutory powers Providing a baseline for future consideration of alignment with revalidation and publication of names of approved trainers.

GMC’s

Education Strategy

‘By 2013, we will have developed and implemented an approvals framework for all trainers of undergraduate and postgraduate learners, building on the process for selecting, training and appraising GP trainers. It will promote and enhance the value of training both in individual job plans and within the organisations that employ doctors involved in training.’

Objectives a.

b.

Help to ensure the safety of patients and trainees and enhance the training environment.

Improve the quality of training particularly in relation to: i.

Assessment decisions ii.

Trainers as role models to trainees iii.

The training of trainers iv.

Lines of accountability and responsibility.

c. Improve links between the regulator and the postgraduate deaneries and medical schools that organise local education processes.

d. Enhance the perceived value and visibility of the training role and focus attention on the professional time needed and on the transparency of the resources available.

Recognising and approving trainers

GMC Standards in TTD and TD

M A P P E D

GMC role in supporting trainers Areas from Academy of Medical Educators Document Education Organisers: Deaneries and Medical Schools - Identification of Trainers

Q A

Local education providers Map current training and identification of trainers against 7 headings with evidence in appraisal

Academy of Medical Educators Framework

Ensuring Safe and Effective Patient Care through Training

The effective supervisor

The excellent supervisor

Relevant supporting evidence

Content for course designers

Scope of recognition and approval Undergraduate:  Lead co-ordinators of training at each LEP  Doctors responsible for overseeing students’ educational progress at each medical school Postgraduate:   Named educational supervisors Named clinical supervisors Sessional Supervisor

Proposed responsibilities of LEPs a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Identifying trainers who meet the criteria Supporting trainers through: i.

ii.

Job plans Appraisal iii.

iv.

Support for training and development of trainers Dealing effectively with concerns Taking effective action where remediation is not sufficient Mapping their arrangements against the 7 areas of the AoME Framework and ensuring that the GMC standards are met Liaising with education organisers in accordance with agreed arrangements Identifying the key responsibilities held by clinical tutors or Directors of Medical Education

Proposed responsibilities of education organisers (deaneries and schools) a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Identifying trainers who satisfy the GMC’s criteria and standards Quality managing training arrangements at LEPs Reviewing available information before deciding to identify individual trainers Reaching agreements with LEPs on respective roles and responsibilities Passing on information to the GMC about the GP trainers identified Cooperating with quality assurance by the GMC

Pilots      Medical schools: Cardiff, Peninsula, UCL Deaneries: KSS, NW, Northern, SW Trainers could be identified Mapping of local arrangements against GMC standards and AoME areas done or feasible Costs –    Identifying the trainers – no extra cost Mapping – small cost may be necessary Meeting standards – some cost to train all clinical supervisors to meet standards

What are the potential benefits and risks for our proposals?

Potential benefits: • Enhancing ‘recognition’ of the importance of training?

• • Underlining the importance of training trainers and protecting time to deliver training?

A new way to spread good practice and drive improvement?

• • • Supporting appraisal for recognised trainers?

Potential risks: • • Costs in money and professional time?

Undermining trainers who are outside the scope of recognition?

Implementation in context of reorganisation, revalidation and resource constraint?

Too ambitious? Too cautious? About right?

Timeline     Consultation – 6 January to 30 March 2012 7 Education Events Report to GMC Council – July 2012 Implementation – Autumn 2013

Any questions?