Less Than Full Time Trainees (LTFTTs)

 

This section brings together guidance and policies that are of particular relevance or interest to LTFTTs.  Content will continue to be added as it becomes available.

 

In this section:

Changes to MSF and PSQ for LTFTTs (August 08)

Guidance on the number of WPBA tools for LTFTTs

 

WPBA Update - Changes to MSF and PSQ for less than full-time trainees (LTFTTs)

From August 2008 the minimum Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) and Multi-Source Feedback (MSF) evidence required by LTFTTs in ST1 and ST3 will change.

 

Now that a full year of WPBA has been implemented the minimum evidence required has been reviewed and a change to the MSF and PSQ requirements for LTFTTs has been agreed.  We believe that this change will enable trainees to provide adequate evidence of competence progression at the mid and end points of the ST1 and ST3 training year, but will reduce the number of assessment tools that they are required to undertake.

 

The requirement for MSF and PSQ prior to each six month review in ST1 and ST3 will be changed so that for less than full time trainees MSF and PSQ will be presented at the review that represents the mid and end point review for ST1 and ST3 respectively. This ensures that there is sufficient time for appropriate feedback and any necessary change in behaviour.

 

The schedule with respect to DOPs, Mini CEX, CBD and COTs remains the same.

 

Minimum evidence schedule for LTFTTs training at 50% of full-time - more information ...

 

Guidance on the number of WPBA tools for LTFTTs

There have been an increasing number of queries about the assessment requirements for less than full time trainees, particularly regarding what represents the minimum evidence required to make an assessment of competency progression. This guidance seeks to explain the current position and the review process.

 

• We recognise that this is an area of concern for those in less than full time training, and that the requirements as they stand create a greater volume of assessments overall for less than full time trainees compared to their full time equivalent peers. The difficulty is reconciling the requirement for six months reviews (irrespective of full versus less than full time status) as detailed in the Gold Guide, with the minimum amount of evidence required to make a reasonable judgment of competency progression.

 

• If evidence is collected and presented for the six month review on a pro rata basis it may result in very infrequent assessment. For example, ST1 & ST2 training at 50% full time equivalent, would require a judgement of competence progression based on 1½  (realistically 1 or 2) COTs or CbDs and ½ a MSF (which would either be with fewer respondents or not done). Judgements made on a small and less than complete evidence set are not considered valid.

 

• The RCGP continually evaluates its assessment processes and will keep the requirements for Workplace Based Assessment under review.  However, our current guidance remains that the educational review schedule for DOPs, Mini CEX, CBD and COTs for LTFTTs will remain the same and at the same intervals as full time trainees; namely every six months with annual reviews of competence progression (ARCP). This concurs with The Gold Guide recommendations. For MSF and PSQ see above.

 

• Less than full time trainees will be required to gather the same amount of evidence prior to their educational reviews as their full time equivalents. The review and assessment schedule should not be considered and collected on a pro rata basis.

 

• Legal advice sought by the RCGP confirms that this policy is not discriminatory to any group of trainees because it has been adopted for educational and psychometric reasons.