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 was
changed.
After the first full year of WPBA was
implemented the minimum evidence required was reviewed and a change
to the MSF and PSQ requirements for LTFTTs was agreed. We
believe that this change enables 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 was changed so that for less
than full time trainees MSF and PSQ are 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.