Transcript The nMRCGP
ARCP Panels What’s is all about? What is ES doing when deciding on the outcome of an educational review? Making a recommendation to the ARCP panel based on your expert knowledge of the trainee 3 outcomes: satisfactory unsatisfactory panel opinion requested ES Recommendation ES knows trainee best ES expert recommendation is usually most important piece of evidence used by ARCP panel in determining outcome Usual outcomes should be satisfactory or unsatisfactory Only use POR if genuinely unsure Satisfactory - ideal! All assessments complete and the trainee has performed to the required standard Learning Log is of an acceptable quantity and quality PDP is active and SMART No concerns in MSF, PSQ, CSR or Educator’s notes When to ask for a panel opinion? ‘Genuine uncertainty’ For a second opinion NOT for a ‘telling off’ ? Discuss with TPD first Try to avoid in January if possible ARCP Panel Sits once per year in June No routine panel in February Special panels may be convened in particular circumstances or for those out of step in training Every trainee must have an ARCP review in a 12 month period All of training must be covered by an ARCP ARCP must be informed by an ESR that is less than 2 months old WOS: 3 stage procedure Level 1 Screening panel TPD ? discussion with AD All trainees scrutinised If satisfactory progress 3 possible outcomes: 1 satisfactory progress 6 completion of training 8 OOP Any concerns or missing evidence referred to level 2 Level 2: Electronic panel 1 or 2 TPDs from other programmes + Trainer + lay person + admin rep +/- RCGP External Advisor Detailed scrutiny of e-portfolio +/- additional evidence Outcomes: 1 satisfactory 6 completion of training 5 unsatisfactory additional training may be required (letter re concerns, 2 weeks to reply with an action plan, ES/TPD monitor) referred to level 3 (face to face interview) Level 3: Face to face interview May consider additional evidence/extenuating circumstances ? Health problems Made up of Assistant Director, TPDs, Trainers, lay reps, NES admin staff +/- RCGP EA Further scrutiny of evidence Level 3 outcomes: 1 6 2 3 4 satisfactory satisfactory completion of training CCT unsatisfactory, specific competencies needing developed, no additional training unsatisfactory, specific competencies and additional training required (remedial) removed from training (must have had previous outcome 3 at some point). Right of review of outcome 2 and appeal of outcomes 3 and 4 Step 1 appeal Original panel meet to re-consider evidence available. Usually has new chairperson Trainee re-interviewed Can uphold or overturn original decision Appeals panel Dean or another GP Director Lay rep External RCGP rep TPD (different specialty) Senior trainee (different specialty) Reconsider all evidence. Re-interview trainee, call informants (ES, TPD, AD) Trainee can be accompanied Decision is final. ARCP Outcomes: 1 – Satisfactory progress 6 – Satisfactory progress completion of training 5 – Unsatisfactory progress - additional training time may be required (missing evidence) 2 – Unsatisfactory progress no additional training time required 3 – Unsatisfactory progress additional training time required (remedial) 4 – Unsatisfactory progress removed from training 8 – Out of programme Trainee cases for discussion Appoint a chairperson Consider the evidence What more information may have been helpful? What are the main issues for this trainee? What questions would you ask at interview What support would be available/appropriate? Indicative outcome Next stage for trainee Specific Requirements: Panel make specific recommendations for areas to be focused on in next 6 months Specify minimum number of assessments to be undertaken (may be more than RCGP standards) May make suggestions re educational activity/exam preparation Recorded on ARCP form for trainee signature. Common issues at Interview: Trainee not engaging despite advice Repeated exam failure Multiple MRCGP component failure Dyslexia assessment advice Lack of insight Trainee feels unsupported by ES/Training Practice Underperformance despite remediation Trainee health problems