1 / 26

Organising rotations in higher surgical training; mapping the job to the curriculum

Organising rotations in higher surgical training; mapping the job to the curriculum. Steve Bale Programme Director T & O Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Present. A competency based curriculum Trainees are sent to a hospital Hopefully given the training they need

jamar
Download Presentation

Organising rotations in higher surgical training; mapping the job to the curriculum

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Organising rotations in higher surgical training; mapping the job to the curriculum Steve Bale Programme Director T & O Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Regional Representatives Meeting RCS June 2010

  2. Regional Representatives Meeting RCS June 2010

  3. Present • A competency based curriculum • Trainees are sent to a hospital • Hopefully given the training they need • How do we know it’s the best place? Regional Representatives Meeting RCS June 2010

  4. Why? • Loss of SAC visits • Ballooning Consultant numbers • Amalgamation of units • Stagnation of some units • RITA/ARCP feedback • PMETB standards • Deanery Q & A Regional Representatives Meeting RCS June 2010

  5. Hospital Visits • Visited all training hospitals • Team • Informal • Trainees not involved • 3 separate periods to cover all hospitals • Information requested • Trainees questioned separately Regional Representatives Meeting RCS June 2010

  6. Feedback • Reports to each STC member • Visitors findings • Trainees assessment Regional Representatives Meeting RCS June 2010

  7. Mr. M. Aqeel Bhutta Orthopaedic Registrar STC Trainee Representative Orthopaedic placementTrainee ASSESSMENT Survey

  8. Driving Force

  9. Sources

  10. The Survey BACKGROUND • Very simple Feedback questionnaire with traffic light system from 2005. • The updated survey has been collected from 2007 to date for each 6 month placement. • Anonymous when presented to STC. QUESTION SCORING • Graded from strongly disagree to strongly agree, and weighted 1 to 5. • Questions created/phrased to allow scoring to be correctly weighted when assessing scores. A score of 3 (neither agree or disagree) was a negative sign.

  11. THE SURVEY

  12. THE UNIT • Direct question about the unit. • Specific indicators • Are all consultants satisfactory trainers? • Are there Regular trauma/audit and journal meetings? • Is there a adequately equipped registrar room? • Is the Job Plan variable/service provision? 8 questions: max score of 40

  13. THE TRAINER • Sub-speciality of orthopaedics that ‘trainer’ believes is provided. • TRAINER 4 questions Approachable/supportive/interested in training/adapted to your training needs • Surgical supervision:- Trauma & Elective :- 4 Q’s • Out-patient supervision :- 3 Q’s • Mini-logbook. Based on OCAP index procedures. Number procedures as primary surgeon Total number of procedures with trainer • OCAP compliance • Research and Audit support.

  14. TRAINEE SUMMARY • Trainee selects what the placement delivers in terms of sub-speciality training. • Appropriate trainee level for the placement. • Mini-logbook for the entire attachment • Placement recommended to a colleague (they got on with!!!) • Open comments of how to get the most out of the attachment • FEEDBACK ON THE SURVEY

  15. ResultsThe Training units

  16. ResultsThe Trainers

  17. comparison of trainers between units

  18. The Future STC Trainers Initial Training Slots Data Post Training Slots Allocation

  19. Next phase • Ask Trusts whether they want remain as training Trusts • Ask individual Trainers whether they want to remain as Trainers • Ask what training can be offered • Invite bids from pairs of Trainers for training opportunities from ST3 – ST8 Regional Representatives Meeting RCS June 2010

  20. Results • Bid quality varied hugely • Bids assessed by same committee • Trainees intimately involved • Excess bids over slots Regional Representatives Meeting RCS June 2010

  21. Next phase • Year 1 – Hip 1, Knee 1 • Year 2 – Shoulder & Elbow, Foot & Ankle • Year 3 – Hip 2, Knee 2 • Year 4 – Hands, Paeds, Spines* • Year 5 - Subspeciality • Year 6 - Subspeciality Regional Representatives Meeting RCS June 2010

  22. Each programme, and every trainer, will wish to retain a degree of individuality, whether of organisation (4, 6 or 8 month attachments) or specialty selection. It is intended that the curriculum design will be able to recognise this, whilst providing a consistency of standard and outcome. Regional Representatives Meeting RCS June 2010

  23. Outcome • Successful allocation of bids to slots • Gains by some Trusts • Losses by others • Trainees very happy - 4 year programme of specific Trainee/Trainer contracts Regional Representatives Meeting RCS June 2010

  24. Deanery permission / finance • Dean to ratify • Chief Executives • Financial implications • Tight for August 2010 Regional Representatives Meeting RCS June 2010

  25. On-going Q & A • Reassessment • Waiting in the wings • New Consultant Trainers • Review every 2 -3 years Regional Representatives Meeting RCS June 2010

More Related