DR. SUZANNA MATHEW

(CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE)

CORE SLIDES FOR TOT-08/09/2015

Public Health Specialty Training Curriculum 2015

Outline

Process of reviewSummary of changes

Key Areas Timing and phase Competence for consultant practice

Small Group exerciseImplementation planResources

Process of Review-1

Online Questionnaire-priorities for change, learning outcomes, phases, assessment, documents on website

Workshops(5 locations) 1. Core public health skills 2. Delivery of Training 3. Public Health On Call 4. Leadership and advocacy 5. Metacompetence

Principles of change agreed through workshops

Working group members and Key Areas

Group topic Members & Region1 Surveillance  and assessment of

the population's health and well-being & Public Health Intelligence

Hilary Guites (London), Emily Youngman

2 Assess the evidence of the effectiveness of health and healthcare interventions, programmes and services & Health and Care Quality

Judith Bell (East Midlands), Mark Lambert(North East) Mary Bussell (London) Richard Firth

3 Policy and strategy development and implementation & Strategic leadership and collaborative working for health

Anna Chicowska(London), Jennie Carpenter (Yorkshire), Martin Schweiger(Yorkshire), Dave McConalogue

4 Health Protection Margot Nicholls (London), Yvonne Young (London), Gavin Dabrera, Duncan Cooper

5 OSILOs & Training Phases Fiona Head (East of England), Mel Conway (South East), Susanna Roughton, Andy Graham

6 Meta-competence, Ethical Management of the Self

Jennie Carpenter (Yorkshire), Suzanna Mathew (Yorkshire) Sarah-Stewart Brown, Yasmin Akram

7 Academic Public Health Julie Parkes (Wessex), Carol Brayne (East of England), Ellie Hothersall, Kirsty Little, Jennifer Yip

8 Health Improvement Fiona Reynolds (NorthWest), Eamonn O'Moore (London), Hilary Guite, Judith Stansfield (London), and Suzanna Mathew (Yorkshire), Oliver Quantick

Process of Review-2

Draft version of curriculum sent with questionnaire: 13 organisations and 25 individuals responded Do the changes adhere to agreed principles

(64%) Does the change signal an improvement (61%) Issues raised in consultation that have not been

addressed Impact on equality and diversity(75% said none) Challenges in and barriers to implementation

Three priorities for change(n=106)

Increase generic transferable skills ( leadership, management, political, strategic)

Remove specific contexts(many have or will disappear)

More guidance on what constitutes a sufficient level of detail to sign off a learning outcome

Less duplicationBetter worded learning outcomes

GMC Standards

Why GMC stds?Lay person or patient involvement in the

implementation of standardsResources and infrastructure available at all

level, national deanery, LEPDo current trainers have enough peer support

and training?Concerns around transparency of process and

standardisation of assessment in relation to individual learning outcomes

Map typical examples in next version

Summary of changes

The overall number of learning outcomes has been reduced, with some new ones added(77 in KA 1 to KA9+ 12 in KA10).

The presentation of outcomes has been improved by rewording/renumbering and using clearer descriptors

The number of phases of training has been reduced from three to two

The key areas have been reorganised: 8 has been amalgamated into 1, amendments have been made to 9 and a 10th has been added in, introducing competencies for consultant practice

No change to Part A and B exams

Summary of Changes-1Miller’s adapted model of learning for public health

Summary of changes -2

2.3 Public health training pathway

PHASE 1 PHASE 2

ST1 ST2 ST3 ST4 ST5 KNOWS KNOWS

HOW/SHOWS SHOWS HOW/ DOES DOES

ARCP ARCP ARCP ARCP

PART A** PART B***

2 years (normally up to 30 months maximum). Part A and Part B MFPH obtained in this phase and public health knowledge and core skills gained. Registrars are also expected to begin to demonstrate development of ability to integrate their use of those skills as progress towards independent practice. In phase 1 this will be assessed by examination, at each annual appraisal and ARCP.

This phase allows the registrar to take increasing levels of responsibility leading to the final year when registrars are expected to work at consultant level but under supervision. In the final year, supervision will become increasingly ‘light touch’ as the Educational Supervisor judges that the registrar can be entrusted with work reflecting a high level of responsibility. ‘Acting up’ into a consultant post is encouraged in the final year of training. In phase 2 workplace based assessment, annual appraisals and ARCP will continue to assess this progress.

Summary of changes -3

Group Work

In small groups, work through tables c and d for one Key Area( 1 to 10), and identify 2 pieces or work that all Public Health StRs should ideally complete before their CCT.

Share any good practice example from this area that you have experienced as an StR or Supervisor.

Thank you very much

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN-HOW, WHO, WHEN AND WHERE AUGUST 2015 TO JULY 2017

At least two years are required for implementation to reach a routine level of use

Formal channels of two way communication among those involved in implementation Priorities for C and A committee. Target groups e.g., CPD co-ordinators, ?Faculty

assessors Target groups of StR( Gps C and D).

Implementation plan

Who will need to change over to new curriculum?

Implementation date is set as 1/8/16, those who have 12 months or more of WTE training as of 1/8/16, i.e. CCT 1/8/17 or later, will be required to transfer to the new curriculum.

Those recruited in 2015 will be required to move to the new curriculum.

Implementation strategy-targeted approach

A. Staying with 2010 curriculum CCT on or before 31/7/17=109+131

B. Starters in 2015 Approx 80

C. CCT 1/8/17 to 31/7/18 Approx 80

D. CCT 1/8/18 to 31/7/19 Approx 80

E. CCT1/8/20 and later -Approx 25

Commitments in GMC submission

FPH hosting a number of curriculum workshops What does this mean for me? Delivery mechanisms What work continues?

Specific workshops for TPDs, ESsIntegration with existing TOT programmesIntegration into FPH e-portfolioExplore possibility of new formative

assessment linked to KA10.

Implementation Plan-Resources

FPH Workshops / TOT programmesDetailed mapping of new learning outcomes to old has been

prepared, and the new additions highlighted. Most can be simply read across and there are only three new learning outcomes in core competency.

Mapping to part A syllabus and part B skills by exam committee chairs

Additional support to programmes/schools as neededStR curriculum champions- to assist in promoting the

curriculum and help build up asset of frequently asked questions.E portfolio working group

E-Portfolio working group

Work on developing the e-portfolio to make it compatible with the new curriculum is progressing well. A small working group (consisting of two Registrars, Grant Fisher, Alex Bulgo and myself ) will be overseeing the work.

We have divided the work into two phases. Phase 1 will involve implementing changes to the e-portfolio

so that new Registrars can start logging their training as soon as possible. work has already begun and we are aiming to have the e-portfolio ready for new Registrars to begin logging their work towards the middle/end of October.

The second phase will involve transitioning existing Registrars, who are required to move to the new curriculum, to the 2015 curriculum in the E-portfolio. The Phase 2 work will begin in January next year.

Time for Action!