2010/11 Enhanced Annual Return (EAR)
Every year, each school must provide a return to the General Medical Council (GMC)
that:
 Identifies significant changes to curricula, assessments or staffing.
 Highlights risks or issues of concern, proposed solutions and corrective actions
taken.
 Identifies examples of innovation and good practice.
 Responds to issues of interest and debate in medical education, including
promoting equality and valuing diversity.
 Identifies progress on any requirements or recommendations arising from the
QABME visit process.
In 2009/10 we requested an enhanced annual return, which requested a selfassessment of progress on the implementation of Tomorrow’s Doctors 2009. This
was to ensure a continuing oversight of undergraduate medical education and to
begin benchmarking all schools against the revised standards.
The information schools returned in the 2009/10 EAR, has already proven very
valuable and has been widely used to inform the Tomorrow’s Doctors workshops this
Spring and a joint MSC-GMC student fitness to practise workshop in May. The EAR,
along with the Tomorrow’s Doctors workshops, has shaped the 2010 Education
Directorate work programme, which includes projects developing advice on patient
and public involvement, assessment and student assistantships.
All schools received a feedback report in August 2010 summarising the progress
towards compliance with Tomorrow’s Doctors 2009 standards for delivery and
outcomes for graduates, as reported in self-assessment returns from 31 schools
received in January and March 2010. The report also included feedback specific to
each school to assist schools to benchmark progress and prepare for the EAR
progress update for 2010/11.
The aim of the EAR 2010/11 is to enable you to revise your assessment of the status
of your compliance, update cohort data (such as student demographics, fitness to
practise and progression data) and to provide information on progress made in the
last year, including examples of practice or continuing challenge.
We are committed to:
 Supporting schools to implement the new Tomorrow’s Doctors 2009 standards by
2011/12.
 Quality assuring against the new standards in a way that acknowledges that
schools will require time to adapt.
GMC QABME Enhanced Annual Return 2010/11: UCL Medical School
1 of 26
Instructions: please read before completing the EAR
Information security and data protection
The GMC meets the requirements of the international security standard, ISO 27001.
Any material you provide will be stored in a secure environment. Please note that the
GMC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If we receive a request, we
may be required to disclose any information you provide to us unless a Freedom of
Information exemption applies. The data returns for Section A on action on
requirements and recommendations from previous QABME reports may be
published on the Education pages of the GMC website. We will not publish the full
primary returns for Sections B and C from schools. Please contact us if you have any
queries, and complete the Consent Declaration in Basic Information to confirm
that the GMC can share certain response data with the Medical Schools
Council.
Completing Section A & B (Word) document
This document has been protected to prevent automatic formatting changes.
Please enter answers in the text boxes and tables below each question, and only
attach additional sheets (clearly identified with the Question number) if the Word
form cannot accommodate your full response to each question.
Questions include a suggested number of words for your response (for example 250
words). While this is the recommended text limit, it is not an absolute maximum.
Please do keep your responses as concise as possible. If more information is
required this will be followed up after submission. You are welcome to use bullet
point format. Where there are tick boxes ( ) please double click on the box to enter
a check-mark. The key Tomorrow’s Doctors 2009 paragraphs for each question have
been included for your reference in square brackets [TD].
Some information has been pre-populated from the 2009/10 EAR, please update as
needed.
Section C (Worksheets)
Section C is a separate Excel spreadsheet with instructions and 15 worksheets to
update.
For schools undergoing a rolling review: If you have previously submitted information
as part of your QABME review that is unchanged please contact your Education
Quality Analyst in the first instance.
EAR 2010/11 submission
Upload completed responses to the document folder named
‘2010/11_name of school Enhanced Annual Return’ in your school-specific GMC
Connect account (account information will be provided by December 2010).
 Friday 14 January 2011 for:
Section A - Requirements & Recommendations
Section B (Word) - EAR Update
Section C (Excel) – Worksheets
Completed document register and any required additional documentation.
2 of 26
2010/11 Enhanced Annual Return (EAR): Basic Information
Please amend the details below if incorrect.
Name of Medical
UCL Medical School
School:
Name of
Professor Jane Dacre
Dean/Head of
School:
Name of QABME
contact:
Ann Glasser
Contact tel:
Contact email:
j.dacre@medsch.ucl.ac.uk
Contact tel:
020 7830 2447
Contact email:
a.glasser@medsch.ucl.ac.uk
All please complete:
Consent declaration –
We have worked with the MSC to identify the information requested on student
profile (Section C, Worksheet 5) and progression (Section C, Worksheet 14) and
plan to share your response to this section, and to Tomorrow’s Doctors criteria 134
(in Section C Worksheet 8) with the MSC. Please confirm whether you are willing for
your response to be shared with the MSC.
Yes
No
Contact Alison Lightbourne or another member of the quality team on quality@gmcuk.org or 020 7189 5450 if you have any queries about completing the 2010/11 EAR
update.
3 of 26
EAR 2010/11 – Section A
Response to previous QABME requirements and recommendations
For all schools except those reviewed in 2009/10 for submission by 14 January 2011
Please note that responses to this section may be published on the GMC’s website.
The School’s previous report can be found at http://www.gmcuk.org/education/undergraduate/undergraduate_qa/medical_school_reports.asp. Please answer the following questions to provide an
update.
4 of 26
1.
For all requirements listed below please provide an update indicating how they have been addressed.
If the School did not have any requirements in its last report or the requirements were fully met and reported in a previous annual return
please check the box
Tomorrow’s doctors 2003 area
Action taken – If
none, explain
why
Contact
Supporting
documents list
Timeline
Curricula content, structure and delivery Changes towards
integration of the
management
Response too
large for table:
attached
document no.1
(See Document
Register)
Professor Jane
Dacre (Director
of Medical
Education); Dr
Deborah Gill
(Deputy)
Organogram
Ongoing
Curricula content, structure and delivery Review teaching
styles in Phase 1
to facilitate
transition of
students between
Phases
Response too
large for table:
attached
document no.2
(See Document
Register)
Professor
Michael Gilbey
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ Ongoing
medicalschool/
staffstudents/
mbbs-review/
Curricula content, structure and delivery Further
development of
Quality
Assurance
activities
including Quality
Enhancement
See Question 35
(as discussed
with GMC team)
Dr Ann Griffin
Requirement
5 of 26
Curricula content, structure and delivery Adequacy of
teaching space
following the
completion of the
move to UCH
2.
Following the
progress
reported last
year, the
situation
appears
adequate, with
no complaints
about the
facilities from
teachers of
students.
However we are
monitoring
closely as there
may be a
change in
pressures with
the introduction
of a new
curriculum in
2012.
Dr Jean
McEwan
Minutes of
UCLH/UCL Joint
Undergraduate
Teaching
Committee 06-10
QA/SIFT UCLH Site
Visit Reports 05-10
For all recommendations listed below please provide an update indicating how they have been addressed.
If the School did not have any recommendations in its last report please check the box
Tomorrow’s doctors 2003 area
Recommendation
Action taken
– If none,
explain why
Contact
Supporting documents list
6 of 26
Timeline
Curricula content, structure and delivery The School needs
Response
too large for
table:
attached
document
no.3 (See
Document
Register)
Curricula content, structure and delivery Some clinical staff
Response
are involved in
too large for
teaching of Phase I, table:
but at present, no
attached
basic scientists are document
involved with
no.4 (See
teaching in the later Document
stages of the
Register)
course. This is an
issue the School
wishes to work
towards and the
visiting team would
commend this
approach
to ensure sufficient
teaching space and
staff is available as
the course
develops
Dr Jean
McEwan
Minutes of School Estates Strategy
Committee
Professor
Michael
Gilbey
MMG minutes and
Ongoing
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/medicalschool/
staffstudents/mbbs-review/
7 of 26
Curricula content, structure and delivery The School should
consider providing
the results of the
Student
Satisfaction
Surveys back to
students
Feedback to
the students
about the
results of the
NSS is now
provided in
two ways.
One as a
summary and
link to the
whole NSS
results on the
QA website
and a slightly
longer
document for
the student
(RUMS)
bulletin.
Ms Ann
Glasser
Completed
8 of 26
EAR 2010/11 – Section B
EAR Update
For submission by 14 January 2011
Domain 2 - Quality assurance, review and evaluation
3.
Please update us on how has the School has engaged local education
providers in course design, delivery and management, to support implementation of
Tomorrow’s Doctors 2009 in the 2009/10 academic year. Please include detail on
how successful engagement with local education providers has been and how any
challenges have been overcome [TD 41, 48] (250 words)
NHS staff are fully included in a number of module management groups and committees.
We are working towards implementing a new curriculum in 2012. We engaged in a detailed
consultation process of over 800 stakeholders, including many NHS staff. We are now in the
implementation phase and NHS staff are involved in the design and management by joining
the implementation working groups. We have a working group called the NHS/Workplace
based learning group that consider how best to implement new curriculum teaching and
learning in our NHS partner Trusts. 2011 will see a major communication exercise in the lead
up to the new curriculum including a website, bulletins, road-shows and presentations at all
partner Trust settings.
Annual site visits are used to ensure Trust based staff have an opportunity to engage with
the medical school.
We run an annual final year tutors and an annual GP tutors workshop to ensure those in
distant Trusts and practices are fully informed about changes to the curriculum and have an
opportunity in a workshop setting to contribute to debates and a medical education
conference, in June 2008, will act as a venue for further collaboration and training.
4.
In the 2009/10 EAR some schools gave examples of projects that involve
patients and the public, and others identified opportunities to work with partners to
involve patients and the public. Some schools were experiencing challenges in this
area.
To assist us with sharing examples of practice please provide examples of patient
and public involvement which have worked particularly well. Please use the tick
boxes to classify the area of involvement, selecting as many that apply [TD43b, and
D5 103-105].
9 of 26
Governance
and quality
management
Development
of curriculum
and
assessment
Assessment
and feedback
Area of patient and public
involvement
Teaching
Example of patient and public involvement
Simulated patients in comm. skills teaching
Real patients in phase 1 PDS join groups to discuss
experience of illness
Disability workshops run by disabled facilitators in
phase 1
Gynaecology teaching assistants in yr 4
We have a patient representative (nominated by the
Patients' Association) on the External Governance
Group of the Curriculum Review.
Cancer patient journey
Planned new patient pathways:
2011: cardiometabolic
2012: mother and baby and mental health
One of our students has just completed an extended
student project in patient involvement in the new
curriculum. The recommendations are being
considered in the implementation working groups.
Involving patents in giving feedback about their
participation in undergraduate education is currently in
early developmental stages
Domain 3 - Equality, diversity and opportunity
5.
Please complete the following table to show: [TD 58]
a.
Training provided in equality and diversity for staff who teach
students, including School/University, NHS and any other.
b.
The total number of staff in each category and the total number of staff
who have completed the training.
c.
Whether the training is mandatory or voluntary.
10 of 26
d.
How often training needs to be repeated, where appropriate.
If a pre-populated cell is out of date, please check the box and complete the
table with up to date information in all columns.
Staff
category
Total
number of
staff in
category
Name of
training
Example:
Staff
involved in
selection
30
All UCL
teaching staff
(academics)
808
DGHs
We collected
only limited
data as other
Trusts were
either unable
to provide
figures or did
not respond.
6.
Mandatory
or
voluntary?
Total
number of
staff who
have
completed
training
After how
many years
does
training
need to be
repeated?
Please
check box if
prepopulated
row is out of
date
Equality and Mandatory
diversity for
selectors
30
2
X
Equality &
Diversity
?
All, but no
accurate
figures
available,
especially as
those who
complete the
on-line
training may
be omitted
Mandatory
To assist us with sharing examples of practice:
a.
Please confirm whether the School systematically collects data on the
following categories (tick all that apply)
Ethnicity
collected)
Disability
Other
(if ‘other’ please briefly describe the data
Other = school type.
11 of 26
b.
Has the School used this data to (tick all that apply):
Launch or improve a widening participation programme or initiative
Change or modify School policies or procedures
Launch or improve a service, or change curriculum or assessments
Change or modify School policies or procedures
Other
(if ‘other’ please briefly describe)
The School collects the data but has not used it for any of these purposes
c.
Following on from b. please provide 1-2 brief examples. (500 words)
[TD60-61]
A scheme to provide "support cards" for students with disabilities - special provision for
exams, and to make more reasonable adjustments to maximise their teaching experience.
7.
Please complete the following table to show the type and number of
reasonable adjustment requests in the 2009/10 academic year.
Adjustment Category
Physical environment
Application process
Teaching & learning
Assessments
Other support
TOTAL
Number
approved
Number refused Total
requests
5
70
0
0
5
70
75
0
75
8.
If any requests were refused, please briefly outline the reason for refusal.
Please also include cases where student progression was refused on the grounds
that a student would be unable to meet the outcomes required for graduation. (250
words)
N/A
Domain 4 - Student selection
9.
If the selection tools or how and when tools are used in the selection process
have changed since the 2009/10 EAR (Q43) submission please update the table
below [TD71-76]
12 of 26
Selection tool
2009/10
UCAS
application form
UKCAT
GAMSAT
Interview
2010/11
UCAS
application form
UKCAT
GAMSAT
Interview
Description of assessment (e.g.
academic qualities, personal qualities,
ethical and professional behaviours)
How do you use this
tool?
Academic qualifications, personal qualities
(including motivation for medicine, evidence
of teamwork, leadership and communications
skills, study skills and outside interests)
Academic profile is
screened to ensure that
entry requirements are
met; personal statements
and references are
scrutinised in order to
assess previous
experience (work,
volunteering, personal),
motivation, study skills
and other personal
qualities
Not used
Not used
Assessment of scientific aptitude, critical
thinking and written communication skills.
BMAT allows us to identify potential in
candidates irrespective of their background.
The test includes an essay component, which
is also used at interview.
Comparison of candidates’
scores with the average
for the cohort – high
scores strengthen an
application. Scrutiny of
essay to assess written
English and ability to
construct an argument.
Same as 2009/10
Same as 2009/10
UKCAT is not used - we use BMAT
(Biomedical Admissions Test) rather than
UKCAT. BMAT is used to assess scientific
aptitude, critical thinking and written
communication skills. BMAT allows us to
idenify potential in candidates irrespective of
their background. The test includes an essay
component, which is also used at interview
Please note these
comments relate to BMAT
rather than UKCAT:
Comparison of candidates'
scores with the average
for the cohort - high
scores strengthen an
application. Scrutiny of
essay to assess written
English and ability to
construct an argument.
N/A
Interviewers score
candidates for a set of
criteria and make
recommendations to the
Admissions Tutor as to
whether the candidate
should receive an offer.
Not used - we use BMAT
Personal qualities and ethical and
professional behaviour (including intellectual
ability, motivation, understanding of a career
in medicine, ability to express and defend
opinions, awareness of relevant issues,
attitute - including integrity and flexibility individual strengths, communication skills).
The BMAT essay is used to provide a
discussion topic.
10.
Please summarise how the School monitors and evaluates the effectiveness
of its selection criteria and processes. Please include whether there are any specific
triggers for review and when the last review occurred [250 words].
13 of 26
The Admissions Tutor conducts an annual analysis of the performance of students admitted
to the programme. This enables us to identify factors that appear to result in students
performing well on the programme, and factors that result in students struggling and failing.
Entry criteria are then adjusted accordingly to ensure that we select and admit students who
are as well-prepared as possible for the programme. Examples in recent years include
raising the entry A-level grades and requiring both Biology and Chemistry at A-level. Our use
of the BMAT, including statistical analysis of the predictive validity of the test, is assessed on
an ongoing basis by the examination board's statisticians. Feedback relating to our interview
process is collected from interviewees via anonymous questionnaire. The admissions
processes, including criteria-based selection, of the Medical School are evaluated and
approved by UCL Admissions and meet the standards and deadlines set by UCL centrally
and by UCAS. Additionally we hold an annual review via the MBBS Admissions Board.
Monitoring and evaluation of admissions processes is therefore conducted on an ongoing
basis, with any formal adjustments to entry requirements being triggered by the annual
Admissions Board.
Following the publication of Unleashing Aspiration: The Final Report of the Panel on
Fair Access to the Professions, the GMC is involved in work to take forward its
recommendations. We are aware that there are examples of innovation and good
practice in medical schools (as highlighted in the State of Basic Medical Education)
however we need to build a complete picture in order to fully reflect and report on the
extent of progress being made. To assist in sharing examples of practice and
innovation and inform the policy planning and development in the GMC Education
Directorate please complete the following questions.
11.
If the School has an alternative admissions route, which is specifically aimed
at encouraging participation by students from diverse backgrounds please indicate
how this differs from the standard admissions route (tick all that apply).
NB: Please only include information that relates to the selection process, not activity
that precedes this.
Standard
Adjusted
Guaranteed Extended
admission grade
interviews
degree
route only requirements
for
specific
intake
groups
If ‘other’, please provide a brief explanation.
Not applicable
14 of 26
Ringfenced Other
placed for
specific
intake
groups
12.
For the 2010/11 intake, please state how many applications were received for
each alternative admissions route?
Not applicable
13.
And of these, how many were accepted?
Not applicable
Domain 5 - Design and delivery of curriculum including assessment
14.
Describe any changes to the School’s overarching assessment strategy for
the 2009/10 and 2010/11 academic years (250 words) [inc. TD 112, 113, 116-121].
Increasing use of single best answer questions in knowledge tests, increasing use of WPBA
and formative e-assessment.
15.
Please indicate in the table below the month of the School’s final summative
examination.
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
16.
Please indicate in the table below the month during which students from the
School graduate.
May
17.
June
July
For your final assessments: [TD 86, 89]
a.
Attach data of the statistical reliability of final clinical assessment/s in
the 2009/10 academic year.
b.
Describe any specific changes to assessments that are planned or
have been taken as a result of this statistical analysis. (250 words)
No changes
15 of 26
18.
If changes have been made to your assessment framework for the
2009/10 or 2010/11 academic years please attach the latest assessment blueprint/s
for the final summative examinations for each programme.
This should include the learning outcomes, assessment of knowledge, skills, and
behaviour and the assessment methods (including the number and duration of
stations/items for clinical assessments) [inc TD 86, 112-113].
Domain 5 supporting documents to attach - Please name and save
submitted documents as in the bold text below, prefacing document
titles with the document register number
Statistical reliability scores data for the last academic years’
final clinical assessment/s.
The current detailed assessment blueprint/s for the final
summative examinations for each programme (if changes made in
2009/10 or 2010/11)
16 of 26
Document
register
no.
Domain 6 - Support and development of students, teachers and the local
faculty
19.
If the School reported in the 2009/10 EAR (Q16) that all staff were not
appraised for their education role, please provide an update on progress made to
meet this standard. (250 words) [TD 128]
20.
Please complete the following table to show: [TD 128]
a.
Training for staff members who teach students, including
School/University, NHS and any other.
b.
The total number of staff in each category and the total number of staff
members who have completed the training.
c.
Whether the training is mandatory or voluntary.
d.
How often training needs to be repeated, where appropriate.
If a pre-populated cell is out of date, please check the box and complete the
table with up to date information in all columns.
Omit Equality & Diversity training as this is covered in Domain 3.
Staff
category
Total
number of
staff in
category
Name of
training
Mandatory
or
voluntary?
Total
number of
staff who
have
completed
training
After how
many years
does
training
need to be
repeated?
Please
check box if
prepopulated
row is out of
date
Examiners
30
OSCE
refresher
Mandatory
30
1 (prior to
each final
exam
period)
X
Too much
data for
table - not
enough
rows in
table.
Response
in attached
document
no.7 (See
Documents
Register)
17 of 26
21.
To assist us with sharing examples of practice please provide examples of
good practice in the selection, support, training, and appraisal of teachers and
trainers. We are particularly interested in examples of how teachers and trainers
involved in educating students are i) selected and ii) appraised (250 words) [TD
128]
The professional development spine uses small group teachers to run sessions with students weekly
in years 1 and 2, and monthly in years 3 and 4. All tutors apply to become teachers: outlining their
existing strengths as a teacher and their previous development as a teacher. They are also invited to
‘sit in’ in a PDS session to see if the style of teaching matches their abilities. All those selected from
the application process are interviewed. The successful tutors under go an intensive training package.
In the final session of this they are introduced to their buddy who is an existing teacher who acts as
their informal mentor for the first year. All tutors are encouraged to attend further course specific and
generic teacher raining during that first year. During their first year of teaching they also arrange an
appraisal whereby a senior academic sits in on their teaching and then afterwards the teacher does a
self assessment exercise and the two meet for a developmental conversation about the observed
session and their teaching in general. All PDS tutors attend compulsory training 2-3 times per year
and have a further appraisal every two years.
This is a labour intensive activity but it has helped with both tutor retention and the quality of student
feedback on their PDS tutors.
Student Fitness to Practise
Responses to the questions in this section will inform the policy planning and
development in the GMC Education Directorate. [TD 27, 36-37 in D1; 127, 145-147
in D6].
22.
If changes have been made to your fitness to practise procedures for the
2009/10 or 2010/11 academic years please provide an update below. Please
include a brief explanation of why the changes were made. (250 words)
2010/2011 - Our policy has been updated following the issuing of the 2010 Fitness to
Practise guidelines. The number of people who consitute a full panel has been
reduced in order to make it easier to convene panels whilst still keeping in line with
the GMC requirements. The time line for submission of documents to the full panel
has been lengthened in order to allow panel members more time to digest the
information and request any additional clarification well in advance of the panel date.
23.
What is the criteria, or what are the School’s arrangements for choosing
external members of fitness to practise panels? (250 words)
18 of 26
We take recommendations from other medical schools and are selected on the basis
of their experience of dealing with Fitness to Practise issues.
24.
Do the University regulations:
a.
allow for a student to have legal representation at fitness to practise
proceedings?
Yes
No
b.
at what stage of the process is this permissible? (250 words)
It is permissible from the stage of an initial hearing through to completion of a full
panel and also to an appeal if so desired.
25.
In the 2009/10 EAR there were differences in the type of data recorded by
schools about students’ professionalism and fitness to practise. We are interested in
the range of different mechanisms and levels that exist to identify, record, monitor
and respond to concerns that may ‘raise a serious or persistent cause for concern
about their ability to continue on a medical course or to practise as a doctor after
graduation’ [Medical students: professional values and fitness to practise 70-72; TD
146].
26.
Do the School’s arrangements and procedures include systematic recording
and monitoring of informal concerns whether on academic or non-academic grounds,
including ill-health or misconduct even if each specific concern does not itself trigger
consideration by a fitness to practise committee or panel?[TD 145-146].
Yes
No
27.
Please use the flow-chart on the following page (Decision making chart for
medical schools, from Medical students: professional values and fitness to practise
51) to answer the following:
a.
Please list the specific mechanisms that the School uses at the
‘student support and pastoral care’ stage (Box A), to consider and respond to
concerns about student behaviour or health (for example meeting with
teacher/tutor, meeting with student support lead, meeting with placement
lead, consideration by university occupational health or School Health and
Conduct Committee etc)
Following the raising of concerns to the Medical School students will be required to
meet with either a Welfare or Faculty Tutor to discuss the concerns raised. If it is felt
necessary students with health concerns are referred onto Medical Student
Occupational Health and they will report back if any adjustments are required. Where
it is felt that students require further monitoring to ensure that the behaviours report
don't become a pattern will be placed on close supervision, and this ensures that
they are monitored on a regular basis.
19 of 26
b.
At what stage (1, 2, or 3) are concerns about student behaviour or
health recorded in writing?
1
2
3
c.
At what stage (1, 2, or 3) are concerns about student behaviour or
health held and monitored centrally by the medical school?
1
2
3
28.
In reporting on student professionalism and fitness to practise concerns (such
as in the EAR 2009/10) does the School report cases considered at Box A, or Box
B in the following diagram?
Box A
Box B
20 of 26
21 of 26
29.
Please indicate in the table below whether the School is involved in the
consideration of the fitness to practise of foundation year one doctors.
F1 doctors who graduated from your
School
Yes
No
F1 doctors in the local area who did not
graduate from your School
Yes
No
30.
If your School is involved in the consideration of the fitness to practise of
foundation year one doctors, please explain what the role entails. (250 words)
The Foundation School reports any Fitness to Practise issues to the Medical School
and the Medical School follows the same procedures as for current medical students.
31.
If the School does not consider the fitness to practise of foundation year one
doctors, is the School informed of cases by deaneries and foundation schools?
Local or linked
deanery/foundation school
Yes
No
Some cases
Other deanery/foundation school
Yes
No
Some cases
32.
What trends, if any, has the School identified in student professionalism and
fitness to practise concerns and cases? (250 words). Optional update from EAR
2009/10 (Q24).
Not applicable
Domain 7 - Management of teaching, learning and assessment
33.
In the 2009/10 EAR some schools reported challenges in involving employers
in curriculum planning and management. To assist us with sharing examples of
practice please provide examples of employer involvement in the School’s structures
for managing teaching, learning and assessment. Please also report any challenges
that the School is experiencing with employer involvement. (250 words) [TD 151 –
153, and D8 165].
22 of 26
We are developing good working relationships with all our partner NHS sites who
employ 60-70% of our graduates. The final year team have worked closesly with the
director of the local Foundation Programme in developing the new final year
programme incorporating Assistanships. Through these initiatives we are
increasingly focussing areas that will increase immediate preparedness for practice
without compromising longer term educational goals. However it is not possible to
consult with all employers as our graduates take up posts throughout the UK (and
further afield). There is rational method for doing this however the Quality Assurance
Unit is considering a "preparedness for practice" survey in colloboration with the
Foundation School.
Additional questions
34.
Appendix 2 of Tomorrow’s Doctors 2009, paragraphs 5-7, explains what
Article 24 of the European Directive 2005/36/EC says about basic medical
education. Please list for each programme delivered by the School, how much of the
requirement in Paragraph 6 is fulfilled in total and in each year or phase. NB:
Separately list any ‘self-directed study’ in the Theoretical training column.
Year/Phase
5-6 year programme
Theoretical training
(hours)
Practical training (hours)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
788
788
346.5 (Plus 31.5 SDL)
157.4 (Plus 31.5 SDL)
126 (Plus 157.5 SDL)
172
172
1039.5
1165.5
1039.5
Year/Phase
4 year programme
Theoretical training
(hours)
Practical training (hours)
35.
If in the School’s feedback from the GMC in August 2010, we specifically
requested additional information or updates and this has not been explicitly
addressed in Section B or Section C, please complete the relevant sections below:
a.
Outcomes for graduates
b.
Domain 1
23 of 26
c.
Domain 2
Staffing changes:
- Admin staff now 2.4FTE and academic staff 0.2FTE. New Sub Dean Quality started
Sept 2010.
Many processes are well established and internal reviews and audit (UCL IQR/SIFT
site and annual monitoring are either in hand or have been completed.
Developments include:
- Upgrade of Opinio© database for quicker reports which allow greater intra-SEQ
analysis
- Redesign of all Phase 1 SEQs
- Inclusion of core questions for all teaching to allow comparability of data and
analysis of placement quality.
- New certificate of merit for medical student teaching.
- "No show" texting system for short notice teaching cancellations.
Work in progress:
- Review of whistleblowing policy and practices
- Preparation for practice graduate survey
- Patient engagement in QA.
d.
Domain 3
as above
e.
Domain 4
f.
Domain 5
45. covered above
46. In the 2010/11 EAR please provide an update on:
(a) The development of the curriculum plan (TD82).
(b) The inclusion of diagnostic procedure 12 and therapeutic procedure 12 in the
curriculum and assessment.(Question 44, outcomes for graduates, under diagnostic
procedures and therapeutic procedures)
------(a) Please see attached document: 8 (See Document Register)
(b) Please see Sec C (TAB 15. Outcomes compliance)
g.
Domain 6
24 of 26
63. UCL responded that legal representation was either ‘not applicable’ or had not
occurred in its cases of fitness to practise. Please clarify whether students may have
legal representation in proceedings but have declined to date or whether students
are not permitted to have legal representation in proceedings
------Please see Domain 6 Qu 24.
h.
Domain 7
N/A
i.
Domain 8
j.
Domain 9
N/A
84. In the 2010/11 EAR please provide an update on the development of a
systematic approach to collecting information about the progression of graduates in
relation to the Foundation Programme and postgraduate training (TD172).
------We have increased contact between the final year team and our local Foundation
School with regular discussion regarding priorities. One of our partner Trusts
(Basildon) recruits over 80% of its Foundation Doctors from UCL and is undertaking
a two year comparison survey focussing on any changes in "perceived
preparedness" resulting from the introduction the new final year curriculum in 201011. Ann Griffin, Sub Dean for QA, is discussing a systematic "exit" survey with the FS
administrator for all our graduates at the END of their Foundation year.
36.
Please identify any innovations the School is piloting or potential good
practice that it would like to report, particularly successes or effective actions taken
in implementing Tomorrow’s Doctors 2009 to potentially share with other schools.
(500 words)
37.
Please tell us about any risks or challenges related to the implementation of
Tomorrow’s Doctors 2009 (500 words).
You must also complete the worksheets in Section C to indicate your current
compliance against the criteria and outcomes in Tomorrow’s Doctors 2009. The
worksheets also ask for updates on student profiles, progression and fitness to
practise cases, and placement data. Please follow the instructions on the
worksheets.
Thank you!
25 of 26
Please note that only your responses to Section A may be published on the
GMC’s education website pages.

Deadline: Friday 14 January 2011 for:
Section A - Requirements & Recommendations - for all schools except
those reviewed by QABME in 2009/10.
Section B (Word) - EAR Update
Section C (Excel) - Worksheets
If you have any queries about any aspect of the EAR, please contact Alison
Lightbourne or another member of the quality team in the first instance at
quality@gmc-uk.org, 020 7189 5450.
26 of 26