Issues
arising from the Royal College of Pathologists Council meeting
held on the 14th Sept 2006
ACCEA process now available
on web for 2007 applications.
E-Learning update provided
as previously summarised by GF in briefing document.
College had now submitted
an application with all specialties for first two years of training.to
Julia Moore who would be applying to the DoH for funding.
Carter report update. This
was published in August and the College's response was now on
the website. The College was cautiously optimistic, as amendments
had appeared to have been made in the document following consultation
with the College, in particular the importance of clinical activity
and the role of the private sector provision. The twelve pilot
sites were now exploring what was required from them, in particular
what data needed to be collated. This would include workload,
logistics and costing. The definition of a network was unclear,
whether managed and its extent of coverage (SHA, Trust clusters
etc). The need to include costs of Training, Education and R&D
was strongly advocated, and the other contributions made by Pathology
to Trusts (Infection control etc.). The issue of costing would
be raised with the ACB and IBMS. The timetable for the process
was tight with reports likely to be expected by late Summer 2007.
It was felt several issues needed to be addressed more fully,
including IT connectivity (Pathology was excluded from ‘Connecting
for Health'), Employment/ HR issues (a reason why the review may
not be fully implemented.
The President would be
on the Working Group.
Life Sciences Task Force
had been set up about 12 months ago by Sue Hill, the Chief Scientific
Officer. Agenda for Change has led to a necessity to define the
qualifications required for BMSs to attain level 7/8 and the criteria
necessary for this was being discussed by the College and IBMS.
It was currently difficult
for the Lay Advisory Committee to provide members to attend all
Regional Council meetings, although this may be possible over
time. Councils would be expected to feedback to the LAC if there
were relevant issues being discussed at Regional Council.
Mark Taylor had been nominated
as SE England Regional Council Trainee representative.
The issue of ‘Who can request
a test' was discussed briefly. Guidance would be published by
College soon.
The Consultation on Fellowship
had now closed. There had been 150 responses and these would be
the basis for further discussion.
There had been a meeting
between Peter Cowley, the President and Alastaire Mason, regarding
the College's possible involvement in developing a Multi-source
feedback tool for Pathologists. These would be used for revalidation
and appraisal. Members of Council indicated that there were already
several being used, but the GMC wished to develop a generic tool.
Approximately 100 volunteers would be sought by College to pilot
the tool. Regional Council Chairs would be asked to disseminate
the request. There would be training sessions for the volunteers.
The tool had been developed by a commercial company and would
be completed on-line, taking 5-10 minutes. It was anticipated
that this would be completed as part of the revalidation process
once during a 5 year cycle. The tool would be circulated to members
of Council in due course.
It was agreed that CPD
advisers would meet annually rather than 6 monthly, as the process
was now running smoothly.
NCAS was developing a network
of experts to provide advice on the ‘back on track' programme
for Doctors returning to work after a break.
The Electronic workforce
database would be funded by College, and it was hoped to incorporate
scientists and BMSs in due course. There would be year of overlap
with the possibility of the electronic version being linked to
the CPD submission.
The Workforce Review Team
would no longer be recommending NTNs, and Commissioners (SHAs)
may take no notice in any case. MPET funding would no longer be
ring fenced in England , and could now be used to fund PCTs overspend!
Overall there would be increasing pressure on the Pathology training
budget.
Although funding had been
provided for Academic NTNs in Histopathology there had only been
three bids.
The final curricula had
been submitted to PMTEB for approval.
GMC had requested support
from the RCPath for developing Performance Assessment tools (MCQs
and OSPE). It was felt that a generic tool would be impossible
given the range of the disciplines. Furthermore the infrequent
need to use the tool would mean it may be out of date by the time
it is applied.
The Royal Colleges were
attempting to harmonize the roles of College tutors. In other
Colleges the role was in training rather than CPD. It was felt
that a change of title may be the best way forward. It was also
muted that some of the duties of the current tutors could be absorbed
by other College representatives.
There was brief discussion
of the implications for Regional Council of the change in SHA
boundaries. This would be taken to Regional Councils for discussion.
Peter Furness had taken
his discussion document on ‘New tests for NHS Labs' to the CMO,
Liam Donaldson, who had referred him to Ian Barnes as there was
no budget for this in the DoH at present.
CPA standard B1 was discussed.
This relates to who is appropriately qualified to Lead a laboratory.
At present CPA indicated that the employing authority could decide
who could run a laboratory, but this could result in a conflict
of interest.
College Executive Committee
had prepared a Strategic Development Plan that Chairs of Regional
Council were asked to circulate to members of Regional Council.
Issues to discuss in Council:
-
Multisource feedback
pilot
-
Strategic development
plan
-
Model job descriptions-
different for Haematology which contains a paragraph on disputes
with management
-
CPA and Standard
B1
-
College Tutors
|
