We are on the road in Gloucestershire today to officially re-launch our ‘Older, wiser …be sure’ campaign with an exclusive screening of our new film at the National Care Forum’s managers’ conference.
The ‘Be Sure’ campaign is aimed at care home managers, carers and older service users, urging them to check that their health and care professional is registered and to raise any concerns about their conduct or competence. The campaign draws on research we have done that shows most older people do not check whether the person treating them or the person they are caring for is registered.
Checking that a health and care professional is registered with us is vital because it is the only way you will know if the professional meets our national standards for training, skills and behaviour. It is also important because it offers you protection if the professional fails to meet these standards, as we can take action against registered professionals.
In order to convey this message to a wide audience in an engaging and thought-provoking way, we chose to refresh the campaign with a dramatic film that shows what can happen when things go wrong.
The film depicts three older service users, ‘Doris’, ‘Rasheed’ and ‘Rose’, who receive inadequate treatment from both registered professionals and unregistered practitioners. Meanwhile ‘David’, a stretched care home manager, learns how quick and easy it is to check the register when a professional comes to see one of his residents.
Making the film was a great learning experience for our team. We carefully researched the chosen scenarios, which are partly based on actual fitness to practise cases. To make the film as accurate and realistic as possible, we shot on location at a care home, in a hospital and at a house. We also had HCPC registrant partners involved to coach the actors on good and bad practise for their respective professions. This was a wonderful opportunity for us to interact with our partners and learn more about their roles on a day-to-day basis.
It was also a good opportunity to see professional filmmakers at work and to appreciate how much time and effort goes into getting that perfect scene. There were some great acting and make-up artist skills – keep an eye out in the film for a very realistic-looking foot sore!
I hope the work that everyone put into making the film as realistic as possible will really get people thinking about the importance of checking that their health and care professional is registered and remind them that they have recourse if things go wrong.
If you are not joining us in Gloucestershire today, you can watch the film below. We will also be showing a shorter version of the film at the Care Show in Birmingham next month, so do stop by and say hello if you will be attending.
Ebony Gayle
Media & Public Relations Manager, HCPC
Notes:
Check the register online at www.checkthregister.org
Study amongst Older People aged 70+, Ipsos MORI Research Institute for the Health Professions Council, 2008.
A short version of the film is available at: youtu.be/PO8MuHeVaYY
To find out about other regulated professions see : www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/regulators
Showing posts with label standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standards. Show all posts
28 October 2013
30 September 2013
Review of the process of HCPC approval of practitioner psychologist pre-registration education and training programmes
On 1 July 2009, the British Psychological Society (BPS) transferred its regulatory responsibilities to the HCPC and practitioner psychologists became the fourteenth profession to join the HCPC Register.
In addition to agreeing new standards for the profession, the HCPC became responsible for all the pre-registration programmes which transferred from the Society. Over the following three years, we visited each of these programmes to confirm their approval against our standards.
As with all new professions, we have undertaken a review of these visits to look at what, if any, key trends emerge.
From the review, we have identified that the approval process was implemented effectively and there were no outstanding issues specific to this profession. Importantly, this shows how our standards, which are designed to be broad and flexible, can be applied across different professions and education programmes.
The review also enabled us to identify where work was greatest over the past three years, if it was what we expected and what we can learn from the process. Specifically, we have used the findings of the review to develop the process of opening the Register to other new professions.
In particular, it has helped us to identify the most efficient way to transfer and utilise information about education and training programmes from previous regulatory or professional bodies. We have also been able to develop our communication with new professions and education professionals to make sure we effectively communicate who we are and what we do to ease the transition for those directly involved.
These developments have been put to good use as we have since welcomed hearing aid dispensers and then social workers in England onto the Register.
The findings in detail
It is clear from our review that no trends emerged that are specific to practitioner psychologist programmes when compared to programmes from the other professions we regulate. All 98 practitioner psychologist programmes we visited were granted approval or had approval reconfirmed.
Although the number of conditions set against each of the practitioner psychologist programmes varied, the overall average when compared with all other programmes visited over the same period was exactly the same. The particular standards against which conditions were set also mirrored those most commonly set on programmes from other professions.
This is a very positive outcome as the results do not suggest that a profession-specific risk profile has emerged or that there are any difficulties in meeting our regulatory standards.
We will now monitor and review how practitioner psychologist programmes interact with the established monitoring and major change processes to see if any specific trends emerge and, if so, what lessons can be learned from this.
Ben Potter
Education Manager, HCPC
Notes:
Download a copy of the full report
www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutus/committees/archive/index.asp?id=652
Detailed information on the HCPC’s approval and monitoring processes can be found here: www.hcpc-uk.org/education/processes
All HCPC- approved programmes, including practitioner psychologist programmes, appear on our register of approved programmes: www.hcpc-uk.org/education/programmes/register
In addition to agreeing new standards for the profession, the HCPC became responsible for all the pre-registration programmes which transferred from the Society. Over the following three years, we visited each of these programmes to confirm their approval against our standards.
As with all new professions, we have undertaken a review of these visits to look at what, if any, key trends emerge.
From the review, we have identified that the approval process was implemented effectively and there were no outstanding issues specific to this profession. Importantly, this shows how our standards, which are designed to be broad and flexible, can be applied across different professions and education programmes.
The review also enabled us to identify where work was greatest over the past three years, if it was what we expected and what we can learn from the process. Specifically, we have used the findings of the review to develop the process of opening the Register to other new professions.
In particular, it has helped us to identify the most efficient way to transfer and utilise information about education and training programmes from previous regulatory or professional bodies. We have also been able to develop our communication with new professions and education professionals to make sure we effectively communicate who we are and what we do to ease the transition for those directly involved.
These developments have been put to good use as we have since welcomed hearing aid dispensers and then social workers in England onto the Register.
The findings in detail
It is clear from our review that no trends emerged that are specific to practitioner psychologist programmes when compared to programmes from the other professions we regulate. All 98 practitioner psychologist programmes we visited were granted approval or had approval reconfirmed.
Although the number of conditions set against each of the practitioner psychologist programmes varied, the overall average when compared with all other programmes visited over the same period was exactly the same. The particular standards against which conditions were set also mirrored those most commonly set on programmes from other professions.
Number of conditions set on programmes between 2009 and 2012
Percentage of conditions set on programmes between 2009 and 2012
This is a very positive outcome as the results do not suggest that a profession-specific risk profile has emerged or that there are any difficulties in meeting our regulatory standards.
We will now monitor and review how practitioner psychologist programmes interact with the established monitoring and major change processes to see if any specific trends emerge and, if so, what lessons can be learned from this.
Ben Potter
Education Manager, HCPC
Notes:
Download a copy of the full report
www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutus/committees/archive/index.asp?id=652
Detailed information on the HCPC’s approval and monitoring processes can be found here: www.hcpc-uk.org/education/processes
All HCPC- approved programmes, including practitioner psychologist programmes, appear on our register of approved programmes: www.hcpc-uk.org/education/programmes/register
20 August 2013
Independent prescribing for chiropodists / podiatrists and physiotherapists
Matthew Fitzpatrick, musculoskeletal specialist podiatrist
"As a podiatrist in the acute setting, I sometimes need to have the flexibility to respond to the clinical needs of patients, which was not always supported as well with previous medicines management options. Heavy reliance on medical staff, both locally and regionally, meant that there were delays in care that then affected the patient pathway.“The benefit of independent prescribing for podiatrists working as part of the overall health care team is that we can provide the right care at the right time, delivered in the right place.
"Having this option as part of the patient's pathway will mean I am able, where necessary, to positively impact the patient’s outcome as well as relieve pressure on other health care providers. Being able to implement this within the appropriate settings and with appropriate support will certainly revolutionise the way in which my colleagues and I will deliver care to our patients."
Will you be taking advantage of the opportunity to train as an independent prescriber once the programmes have been approved? How will the ability to train as an independent prescriber affect your own practice? Leave us a comment below.
If you have any questions about the new independent prescribing standards, contact us at policy@hcpc-uk.org
Charlotte Urwin
Policy Manager, HCPC
28 May 2013
Education annual report 2012
Our Education Department approves and monitors education and training programmes throughout the UK. This relates predominantly to pre-registration programmes for the 16 professions we regulate, although we do also approve a small number of programmes linked to post-registration areas of practice. Our standards of education and training (SETs) ensure that a programme that maintains its approval with us produces individuals who are fit to practice and are therefore eligible to apply to our Register. We published the Education annual report 2012 on Tuesday 7 May 2013. Here, we look at some of the key themes from our review of our approval and monitoring activities across the UK during the 2011-12 academic year.
In numbers
During this period we:
- conducted 67 approval visits assessing 110 programmes;
- reviewed 256 annual monitoring declarations and 221 annual monitoring audit submissions;
- considered 316 major change notifications;
- investigated four concerns raised about approved programmes that were within our remit; and
- transferred 269 social work pre-registration programmes and 27 approved mental health professional (AMHP) programmes to our register of approved education and training programmes following the transfer of social workers in England from the General Social Care Council on 1 August 2012.
Conditions for new programmes
A key area of growth over the last three years related to new programmes for practitioner psychologists and hearing aid dispensers following the opening of these Registers in July 2009 and April 2010 respectively. We concluded the schedule of approval visits to these programmes in summer 2012.
A common theme across these programmes was the number of conditions we applied on approval that related to practice placements. Our SETs require an education provider to hold overall responsibility for placement provision. Conditions in this area are therefore often focused on the quality assurance arrangements the education provider has in place to manage these important areas of teaching and learning.
This is a trend we often see with new profession programmes that transfer over to us and with new programmes from our existing professions. Our Visitors normally ask for further evidence that education providers are well placed to manage practice placements and that placement educators are equipped to provide appropriate learning experiences. This often means education providers must demonstrate that there are formal, documented arrangements underpinning the relationships they have with their placement providers. When considered in this context, these results do not suggest any profession-specific risk profile for either new profession.
To help address this across all professions, we have been delivering seminars for the past two academic years that are focused on supporting education providers in their management of placements. For these seminars, we invited both education providers and placement educators to attend as we recognise the important role they each play in ensuring the education experience meets our standards. These seminars were well attended by representatives from the majority of our professions and facilitated useful discussions about different approaches to the management of placement provision.
The MSC initiative
The Modernising Scientific Careers (MSC) initiative – a workforce strategy from the Department of Health – has also had an impact on education programme numbers, with the creation of 16 new biomedical scientist programmes in 2011-12, which we approved. We also approved a new route to registration for clinical scientists modeled against the new MSC scientific training pathway. It is possible that we may see the creation of more new biomedical scientist and clinical scientist programmes in future years as a result of the MSC initiative.
These developments suggest that our standards remain fit for purpose and can be appropriately applied to a range of professions and models of education and training for the professions we regulate.
Monitoring
When compared over the last five years, it is clear that our monitoring workload is growing. For annual monitoring, we have seen an increase of 85 per cent between 2007-08 and 2011-12. Major change notifications also increased by 32 per cent in the 2010-11 academic year. These increases are expected each year, because as we approve more programmes, more programmes are subject to meeting our monitoring processes. We anticipate further growth as practitioner psychologist and hearing aid dispenser programmes move into our monitoring cycle.
We required additional documentation for 41 per cent of annual monitoring audit submissions. This is comparable with the results from last year, which reflects the requirement for education providers to show how they meet the revised SETs implemented in September 2009. All programmes in the annual monitoring cycle have now provided this evidence and we expect the number of requests for additional documentation to fall again next year accordingly.
No programmes required a further approval visit as a result of an audit submission and only 2 programmes required a further approval visit as a result of a major change submission. We only decide to conduct an onsite approval visit when the changes submitted by an education provider have significantly changed the way their programme meets our standards. Pleasingly, these results mean our model of open-ended approval is achieving the task it was set out to do: preventing the need for cyclical re-approval visits where possible.
Looking ahead
We anticipate the majority of our approval and monitoring work over the next three academic years to be focused on the schedule of visits to social work and approved mental health professional (AMHPs) programmes in England.
As with all new professions, we will undertake a review of these visits each year to inform our own approval and monitoring approach for these professions and the application of our standards. This review will also feed into future seminar topics and stakeholder liaison that we conduct with the social work profession.
Brendon Edmonds
Acting Director of Education, HCPC
Notes:
You can download a copy of the full Education annual report 2012 here: www.hcpc-uk.org/publications/reports
Further information on the HCPC’s approval and monitoring activities can be found here: www.hpc-uk.org/education
All programmes approved by the Education and Training Committee for meeting our SETs appear on our register of approved programmes: www.hcpc-uk.org/education/programmes/register
28 February 2013
Personal reflections post Francis
Yesterday, I attended a one-day conference on the Mid Staffordshire Report at the King's Fund. Listening to Robert Francis, I was reminded of an incident that took place many years ago when I worked as a speech and language therapist in a hospital unit providing care for the elderly. The incident concerned a lady who had a stroke, resulting in some weakness on her left side. She had severe difficulties expressing herself, although her understanding of language was unaffected. She knew exactly what was going on and what was said to her. She did not appear to have many visitors, but was always pleased to see me and was very motivated to work to regain her speech.
The enduring and disturbing memory triggered by Francis was of coming to her bedside, to find her distressed, agitated and unable to speak, gesturing frantically to me, pointing to her bed. Her sheets were wet and soiled. I got her out of bed and helped her to sit on the chair. I told her I would go and find help. I went to the nursing station; there was no one there. There appeared to be no one around. I eventually found a nurse and told her what had happened. She looked blankly at me. She said: “I'm the only one here. Everyone else is on a tea break.” I said: “Where are the sheets? Can I change Mrs W?” “No,” she said. “It's not your job.” “But she is very distressed,” I persisted. “She will have to wait until the others come back.” “No,” I said. “She needs help now.” I went back to Mrs W and explained that there were very few nurses about. “I know!” she cried.
For several days afterwards, she was subdued, tired easily and was less motivated to work on her speech. I spoke to colleagues about the incident. I felt there was something wrong with a system that could not respond to distress, still less find it acceptable that a speech and language therapist was interfering in the care of a patient. I don't know how typical this was at the time, of course. Nevertheless, in my view, this should not have happened.
Since those days in the early 1980s, the NHS has gone through at least a dozen re-organisations, as well as witnessing a few major inquiries. Sadly, the same themes recur. From patients, those themes are poor care, not enough staff, not knowing what is happening to them, and lack of involvement in decision making. At worst, they are about neglect, rudeness, and lack of respect from staff. What do staff say? Staff shortages, lack of management support, poor supervision, feelings of disempowerment and disconnection. I have often heard front-line nursing staff say they are too overworked and understaffed to be able to afford the luxury of talking with their patients. Too many demands lead to emotional shut down and apparent lack of compassion.
Francis highlighted for all of us involved in delivering health care that a positive culture and clear lines of accountability are not optional extras. They are fundamental to good care. One element necessary to create and sustain both of these is for professionals to have and maintain a clear sense of purpose and a shared set of values that drive everything they do. Some would call this the heart of professionalism. HCPC has been working over the last few years on a programme of research looking specifically at professionalism. We have known for some time that the majority of complaints are about conduct not technical competence. We wanted to address this, initially through research, and later through dissemination and debate with clinicians, educators and students, as well as within the regulatory community. We published the first report in 2011 and the second will come out in 2015. The wider questions we have posed for those on our Register are: What does being professional mean to you? What do you do if you see unprofessional behaviour in others? Can you have a conversation about difficult things, like being a witness to poor care? How is professionalism learned? How do you cope with the stress of being a professional caregiver, working daily with vulnerable people, dealing with unforeseen illness, disability, distress and uncertainty?
Nothing in the Francis report or in today's discussions leads me to think we need to do less. In fact, stepping up our call to registrants to deal constructively with these difficult issues seems all the more relevant in light of this report. We will be looking closely at our responsibilities as a professional regulator, what more we can contribute, and what needs to change in our standards and our engagement with other agencies. Whatever re-organisation the health service undergoes in the coming months and years, it must not lose sight of the need to address the fundamental commitment to care, which we know is not universally delivered, still less universally understood. In the words of Francis: "Every single person serving patients must contribute to a safer, committed and compassionate and caring service."
This is not just about doctors and nurses. If we do not act collectively, we are all undone.
Anna van der Gaag
28 February 2013
The enduring and disturbing memory triggered by Francis was of coming to her bedside, to find her distressed, agitated and unable to speak, gesturing frantically to me, pointing to her bed. Her sheets were wet and soiled. I got her out of bed and helped her to sit on the chair. I told her I would go and find help. I went to the nursing station; there was no one there. There appeared to be no one around. I eventually found a nurse and told her what had happened. She looked blankly at me. She said: “I'm the only one here. Everyone else is on a tea break.” I said: “Where are the sheets? Can I change Mrs W?” “No,” she said. “It's not your job.” “But she is very distressed,” I persisted. “She will have to wait until the others come back.” “No,” I said. “She needs help now.” I went back to Mrs W and explained that there were very few nurses about. “I know!” she cried.
For several days afterwards, she was subdued, tired easily and was less motivated to work on her speech. I spoke to colleagues about the incident. I felt there was something wrong with a system that could not respond to distress, still less find it acceptable that a speech and language therapist was interfering in the care of a patient. I don't know how typical this was at the time, of course. Nevertheless, in my view, this should not have happened.
Since those days in the early 1980s, the NHS has gone through at least a dozen re-organisations, as well as witnessing a few major inquiries. Sadly, the same themes recur. From patients, those themes are poor care, not enough staff, not knowing what is happening to them, and lack of involvement in decision making. At worst, they are about neglect, rudeness, and lack of respect from staff. What do staff say? Staff shortages, lack of management support, poor supervision, feelings of disempowerment and disconnection. I have often heard front-line nursing staff say they are too overworked and understaffed to be able to afford the luxury of talking with their patients. Too many demands lead to emotional shut down and apparent lack of compassion.
Francis highlighted for all of us involved in delivering health care that a positive culture and clear lines of accountability are not optional extras. They are fundamental to good care. One element necessary to create and sustain both of these is for professionals to have and maintain a clear sense of purpose and a shared set of values that drive everything they do. Some would call this the heart of professionalism. HCPC has been working over the last few years on a programme of research looking specifically at professionalism. We have known for some time that the majority of complaints are about conduct not technical competence. We wanted to address this, initially through research, and later through dissemination and debate with clinicians, educators and students, as well as within the regulatory community. We published the first report in 2011 and the second will come out in 2015. The wider questions we have posed for those on our Register are: What does being professional mean to you? What do you do if you see unprofessional behaviour in others? Can you have a conversation about difficult things, like being a witness to poor care? How is professionalism learned? How do you cope with the stress of being a professional caregiver, working daily with vulnerable people, dealing with unforeseen illness, disability, distress and uncertainty?
Nothing in the Francis report or in today's discussions leads me to think we need to do less. In fact, stepping up our call to registrants to deal constructively with these difficult issues seems all the more relevant in light of this report. We will be looking closely at our responsibilities as a professional regulator, what more we can contribute, and what needs to change in our standards and our engagement with other agencies. Whatever re-organisation the health service undergoes in the coming months and years, it must not lose sight of the need to address the fundamental commitment to care, which we know is not universally delivered, still less universally understood. In the words of Francis: "Every single person serving patients must contribute to a safer, committed and compassionate and caring service."
This is not just about doctors and nurses. If we do not act collectively, we are all undone.
Anna van der Gaag
28 February 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)