Policy responses and statements
- Name of organisation:
- Academy of Medical Royal Colleges in the UK
- Name of policy document:
- Draft revised Foundation Programme Curriculum
- Deadline for response:
- 7 September 2011
Background: Further to the MEE Evaluation of
the Foundation Programme Curriculum, the Academy of Medical Royal College’s
Foundation Programme Committee are revising the Foundation Programme
Curriculum which will be in use for the 2012 cohort. The Draft revised
Foundation Programme Curriculum was circulated to Academy members for
review.
The changes include:
- Alterations to the assessment process (The proposed Supervised
Learning Events forms – mini-CEX Draft SLE template mini-CEX)
- Inclusion of the purpose of foundation
- Inclusion of high level descriptors, differentiating between
F1 and F2 outcomes
- Revision and updating of competences and all other sections.
The review was open to colleagues and others who wished to comment.
Introduction:
The Foundation Programme Curriculum (the Curriculum) sets out the
framework for educational progression that will support the first two
years of professional development after graduation from medical school.
Good medical practice and the foundation doctor:
The Curriculum is based on The General Medical Council's (GMC) documents
Good Medical Practice, 2006 (GMP) and The Trainee Doctor, 2011 (TTD).
All foundation doctors and trainers are expected to be familiar with
GMP and TTD and to follow the guidance contained therein on the principles
and standards of clinical care, competence and conduct.
The companion document, the Foundation Programme Reference Guide provides
guidance to deaneries and foundation schools about the structures and
systems required to support the delivery of the Curriculum.
Outcomes of foundation training:
Satisfactory completion of Foundation Year 1 (F1) will satisfy the
needs of the GMC, making the foundation doctor eligible to apply for
full registration. Satisfactory performance in Foundation Year 2 (F2)
will lead to award of a Foundation Achievement of Competence Document
(FACD) which will indicate that the foundation doctor is ready to enter
a core, specialty or general practice training programme.
Who should use the Curriculum:
The Curriculum is intended to be used by foundation doctors, deliverers
of their education and those responsible for quality assurance (nationally),
quality management (deanery) and quality control (locally). It is also
intended to inform medical schools of the outcomes and competences
required by foundation doctors. Some areas of the document are more
appropriate for particular groups, for example, Syllabus and competences
for foundation doctors and their supervisors. It is highly recommended
that the section How to use the Curriculum is read thoroughly by all.
Key messages of the Curriculum:
The purpose of the Foundation Training is clearly stated and is underpinned
by two central concepts:
- Patient safety
Patient safety must be put at the centre of healthcare and depends
both on individual practice and also effective multidisciplinary team
working
- Personal development
Throughout their careers, doctors should strive to improve their performance
to ensure their progression from competence, through proficiency to
expertise, with the aspiration always to provide the highest possible
quality of healthcare.
Foundation doctors must continuously work to improve performance.
They are expected to develop critical thinking and professional judgement,
especially where there is clinical uncertainty. Foundation doctors
should regularly reflect on what they perform well and which aspects
of performance could be improved in order to develop skills, understanding
and clinical acumen.
COMMENTS ON
ACADEMY OF MEDICAL ROYAL COLLEGES IN THE UK
DRAFT REVISED FOUNDATION PROGRAMME CURRICULUM
The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh is pleased to respond
to the draft revised Foundation Curriculum and notes that our Director
of CPD, Dr Alan Connacher, was a member of both Academy working groups
(on assessment and syllabus and competences). Our comments follow and
are based on the changes listed in Appendix D of the consultation document.
-
Purpose of Foundation training: this is
now clear.
-
The value of F2 training: this is now transparent,
and is well supported by the changes to the structure of the syllabus
to separate the outcomes of F1 and F2.
-
Long term disease management:
this is now appropriately highlighted, but under 5.2 (Discharge
planning: p28), competence 10 would be clearer if altered as follows: ‘Understands
the criteria for specialist rehabilitation, care home placement
and respite care.’
-
Assessments within the Foundation Programme:
the shift in emphasis from workplace based ‘assessments’ to
supervised learning events is welcome, and largely meets the concern
over their value. However, it might be argued that, as the
same number of events is still required, the concern that there
are currently too many has not been met.
-
Structural changes in the Curriculum: the
Syllabus and Competences are much clearer, but the competences
seem over-exhaustive and on occasion repeat material already in
the outcomes. Some
editing would be useful.
There are a number of typos that require correction (see para 6 below).
The increased emphasis on acute conditions is helpful.
The standardised listing of the core procedures, and the explanation
of their place in F1 and F2, are much clearer.
The absence of an academic curriculum and e-portfolio is noted and
perhaps should be acknowledged in this document with reference to the
UKFPO review of this issue.
-
Assessment: This is very clear and much improved. It
would be worth emphasising the statement that ‘Foundation doctors
do not have to demonstrate that they have achieved every competence,
but will be expected to discuss or demonstrate achievement in each
of the outcomes’ by adding it to the Introduction of the
Syllabus and Competences.
The use of a Placement Faculty to assess day-to-day performance is
to be welcomed. Deaneries and Local Education Providers will need to
identify and agree a clear mechanism for trainers to feed back to the
named Clinical Superviser, particularly in large Departments.
Although the shift from workplace based assessment to learning events
is useful, the proformas for these should document whether the doctor
gave a competent performance (at F1 or F2 level) or not. This
could be kept as a final confirmation at the end of the form to ensure
that the primary emphasis remains on feedback. If no comment
is made on competence, the educational superviser can only surmise
from the event that feedback took place, and will not have objective
information on outcomes that can be used for an end of placement assessment.
-
Typos:
P32: Valid consent – 3rd bullet ‘Listens to patient concerns
and either answer their questions regarding treatment’ – remove ‘either’ or
add a phrase providing the alternative.
P36: Infection control, bullet 14 – ‘Applies the principles
of infection control to long term conditions managed in put patients’ -
clarify.
P60: Fig 6: ‘Expections’ should presumably be ‘Expectations’.
Copies of this response are available from:
Lesley Lockhart,
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh,
9 Queen Street,
Edinburgh,
EH2 1JQ.
Tel: 0131 225 7324 ext 608
Fax: 0131 220 3939
[2 September 2011]
|
