2012 Medical School Annual Return (MSAR)
Please supply contact details below:
Name of Medical
School:
Name of
Dean/Head of
School:
Name of Quality
Lead:
Name of Quality
Assurance
Administrative
contact:
UCL Medical School
Professor Jane Dacre
Ms Ann Glasser
Mrs Paru Jeram
Contact tel:
020 7679 0890
Contact email:
j.dacre@ucl.ac.uk
Contact tel:
020 7830 2447
Contact email:
a.glasser@ucl.ac.uk
Contact tel:
020 7472 6788
Contact email:
p.jeram@ucl.ac.uk
The Quality Lead is the nominated person who is responsible for managing
engagement with the GMC. If necessary, please
p
include additional details
of anyone who should receive feedback and other communications
regarding the MSAR.
We work with the Medical Schools Council (MSC) in a number of policy
areas and so will share information such as student profile and
progression from your responses with the MSC to support our work.
The GMC takes responsibilities under the Data Protection
Protection Act very
seriously, any data you provide will be stored securely and confidentially.
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 relevant exemption applies. We do
not intend to publish the full MSAR returns from schools; however, we
may publish selected information.
1
Contact Greg Liang or another member of the quality team on quality@gmc
quality@gmc-uk.org
or 020 7189 5332 if you have any queries about completing the 2012 MSAR.
MSAR 2012 – Section A
Domain 1 – Patient safety
1.
Did you identify any themes relating to concerns about the professionalism of
your students?
We ask you to submit this information because it helps us to identify areas of
common concern between medical schools. We use this information to inform policy
development
lopment and to understand the challenges schools face in this area.
There are no developing themes regarding concerns about students’ professionalism.
What we have noticed is that the number of cases being referred to FtP has been
increasing over the last 10 years, but we feel this is largely due to the tightening up
of our processes, rather than worsening behaviour etc.
etc by students.
In terms of students attending GP placements we have not identified any significant
concerns in relation to professionalism. Whilst there are occasional students
requiring advice around punctuality and attendance these matters can usually be
dealt with locally by GP tutors.
2.
Have you taken any action as a result of observed trends in pro
professionalism
and/or trendss in actual student fitness to practise cases?
cases
For this question we would like you to show how you address common
professionalism problems in your students. We may also wish to share this
information between schools as good or notable practice.
Action hass been taken to manage the increasing workload.
No fitness to practise cases have occurred in relation to GP attachments this year.
We have also taken action in relation to a perceived excess of alcohol use in the
sports clubs. One of our welfare tutors is their Patron, and has been working with
them to address inappropriate behaviours which have come to light through our FtP
procedures.
3.
Did you identify any issues with clinical supervision within your Local
Education Providers (LEPs) and if so what steps have you taken to resolve them
them?
2
Your recent submission to the GMC may have partially answered this question,
please use the submission where possible when responding to this question. For
example, your responses to Question 3 and 11 in the contextual information
questionnaire and submission (Document 3 and 4) may be useful.
Requirement 35 of Tomorrow’s Doctors stressed the significance of student clinical
supervision with regard to patient safety. This information will enable us to crossreference with information about postgraduate education where training is delivered
in the same LEPs and highlight areas of potential concern.
LEP
Issue
Action taken
We have introduced a
raising concerns web
portal for the
instantaneous reporting of
issues that concern
students, this can and has
included patient safety
issues.
There have been no issues None regarding this
about inadequate
specific issue.
supervision and patient
safety during this year.
Years 4 and 5
We have not been
informed of any issues of
patient safety due to
problems with supervision
of students. We would
only be informed if there
was a serious incident at a
Trust, complaint against a
student or FtP issue
relating to clinical
supervision (or lack of it).
All final year students are
allocated an Educational
Supervisor with whom
they meet at least 3 times
during the 16 week
placement. For each
clinical placement, they
are allocated a Junior
Supervisor (F1 or F2) with
whom they meet several
times daily and a
Consultant Supervisor with
whom they usually meet
daily. Full guidance is
given to both supervisors.
Final Year DGH
Attachments
None to date
None to date
3
To date, no issues
regarding supervision have
been raised, but students
are asked to feedback to
their Educational
Supervisor and via the
medical school (both
directly and via
anonymized web based
questionnaires.
Domain 2 - Quality assurance, review and evaluation
4.
Paragraph 41 of Tomorrow’s Doctors states that medical schools will have
systems to monitor the quality of teaching and facilities on placement, therefore we
would like to know:
Your recent submission to the GMC may have partially answered this question,
please use the submission where possible when responding to this question. For
example, your responses to Question 3 and 11 in the contextual information
questionnaire and submission (Document 3 and 4) may be useful.
a. How many quality assurance visits did you undertake in the 2011/12
academic year?
We would like to know the frequency of quality assurance visits undertaken over the
last academic year by your school.
Site
Barnet
Royal Free
Date last visited
Jan 2012
April 2012
April 2012
May 2012
Jan 2012
Jan 2012
Nov 2011
May 2012
Jan 2012
May 2012
Nov 2011
May 2012
July 2011
Watford
Royal free
Dec 2011
September 2011
Basildon
Chase Farm
Lister
Luton and
Dunstable
North Middlesex
Type of visit
Focused
NC Roadshow
Focused
NC Roadshow
Focused
NC Roadshow
Focused
NC Roadshow
Focused
NC Roadshow
Focused
NC Roadshow
Focused
NC Roadshow
Focused
Targeted
Comment
Joint with Chase
Farm
Joint with Barnet
4
February 2012
Targeted = triggered visit in response to matter of concern
Extended = continuation of the Trust Undergraduate Teaching Committee led by the
QA SIFT team
Focused = final year with limited review of fourth year
NC Roadshow = Each event lasts 30- 45 minutes and consists of a short
presentation, followed by an interactive Q&A session.
b. If you have identified any concerns or areas of good practice during these
visits, please use this opportunity to provide us with the actions which you
have taken to address them?
We have comparatively less information with regard to undergraduate medical
education than postgraduate medical education. Your responses to this question will
provide us with more information in relation to the quality assurance procedures and
actions of undergraduate medical education.
Please see attached document: Final Year Lead Visit Summary (Doc1)
5.
We expect that schools collect data from different sources to quality manage
aspects of medical education. These sources include:
a) evaluation by students (TD 43a)
b) feedback from patients (TD 43b)
c) feedback from employers (TD 43c).
Your recent submission to the GMC may have partially answered this question,
please use the submission where possible when responding to this question. For
example, your responses to Question 6 (Beacon project) in the contextual
information questionnaire may be useful.
a. We understand that some schools find it difficult to meet standards (43b and
43c) in Tomorrow’s Doctors. To help us understand why this is and what we
could do to support you, please detail any barriers you currently face in
meeting these requirements.
Standards
Barriers
43b
A recent survey revealed a good breadth of feedback for patients and
in line with the diversity published in a recent GMC publication. We do
not as a routine involve patients in systematic surveys. PPI as
previously documented (Beacon Project and Reel stories) see Doc4.
43C
We have recently completed a study about preparedness for practice.
As a medical school we do not systematically collect data from
employees. In order to streamline this process it would be helpful to
integrate this sort of data capture with the Foundation School and
other postgraduate surveys. See MSAR B.
5
b. If you have managed to overcome these barriers, did you identify any
initiatives from these sources?
Standards
Initiatives
43b
NA
43C
NA
Domain 3 - Equality, diversity and opportunity
6.
Have you made any changes in meeting your equality and diversity
requirements set out in Domain 3 of Tomorrow’s Doctors during the 2011/12
academic year?
Yes
No
If yes, please give examples in relation to
a) admissions policy and practice;
b) policy on reasonable adjustments;
c) provision of equality and diversity training;
d) collection and analysis of equality and diversity issues.
a
b
c
d
Example of Changes
7.
What reasonable adjustments did you make in the 2011/12 academic year
and how did you make them? Please only provide examples of any adjustments that
the school didn’t make in previous years.
The examples schools provide in response to this question are used in the
development of guidance to all schools on providing reasonable adjustments for
students with disabilities.
We have 2 principle mechanisms for making reasonable adjustments: through the
Student Support Card Scheme (Supporting students with disabilities using a
'student support card' scheme)
- Raven, PW and Griffin, AE and Hinson, JP (2008) Supporting students with
disabilities using a 'student support card' scheme MED EDUC, 42 (11) 1142 – 1143
and Supporting students with disability and health issues: lowering the social
barriers Cook, Griffin, Hayden, Hinson & Raven (2012) Med Educ 46:564-74; see
Special Provision Application Form - Student-Support Card (Doc2); and special
provision for written examinations which is determined by the UCL Disabilities office.
6
New reasonable adjustments made under the Student Support Card Scheme, mostly
for clinical placements, totalled about 70 in the 2011/12 academic year across the
course (2,100 students over 6 years). Typical reasonable adjustments are described
in the above papers but include: allowance for regular medical appointments
(including psychological therapy); allowance for mobility problems; allowance for
hearing impairment; and specific allowances in OSCEs for mobility problems, anxiety
disorders, stammering.
We would also include as reasonable adjustments all requests for special provision
for examinations from UCL Disabilities Office, for example increased time in written
exams and separate room with proximity to toilets etc. These reasonable
adjustments totalled about 50 in the 2011/12 academic year across the course
(2,100 students over 6 years), although only about 15 of these were brand new as
the majority were continued from previous years.
8.
Building on question 7a. If any requests were refused, please briefly outline the reason for refusal.
We would also like to know why you have not been able to make reasonable
adjustments as it enables us to identify the barriers to progression for students with
disabilities.
There have not been any cases where we have not been able to make formally
requested reasonable adjustments, but such formal requests are unusual anyway.
The process of agreeing a reasonable adjustment is a collaborative discussion
between the student and Student Support Tutor and is equally likely to be informed
by the tutor’s experience of what has worked well in previous similar circumstances
as by the student’s view of what may be helpful.
b. Were there any cases where a student was withdrawn from the course on the
grounds that the student in question would be unable to meet the outcomes
required for graduation?
The data we collect through this question will feed into our review of disability and
health across all stages of medical education and training.
Yes
No
Please go to question 9.
If yes, please state which outcome(s) the student was unable or potentially
unable to meet and why.
7
9.
For information regarding health and disability at all stages of medical
education.
a. Please give details of relevant policies and procedures regarding applicants
who would like to know whether a disability will prevent them from being
selected/pursuing a career in medicine.
UCLMS adhere to relevant GMC guidance and suggest that prospective
applicants (and very commonly, their parents) read the appropriate
information on the GMC website. Although each case is taken on an individual
basis when applications are made by prospective students with significant
disability or health issues, we also have a standard response to preliminary
enquiries about health problems, due to the large volume of these:
There is no reason why someone with a well-controlled health problem should
not enter medical school, graduate and have a good career as a doctor. But,
in our experience, students with active health problems can find it hard to
combine the demanding course with time-consuming treatment. You [and
your son/daughter] might want to consider the possibility that the stress of
studying on a demanding programme may exacerbate health difficulties and
think about discussing these issues with your doctor. There is useful guidance
on the GMC’s website about both the competencies required to qualify as a
doctor (http://www.gmcuk.org/education/undergraduate/tomorrows_doctors.asp) and a section on
“Health and Fitness to Practise” in “Medical students: professional values and
fitness to practise” (http://www.gmcuk.org/education/undergraduate/professional_behaviour.asp).
If you have further questions after reading the guidance and discussing the
issues with your doctor, we would be pleased to give further advice.
Enquiries relating to disability are replied to with a similar letter highlighting
GMC guidance, advising them to discuss with their family doctor or supervisor
on a medical placement arranged by school and pointing out that provided a
student can achieve the required competencies there should not be a barrier
to studying medicine.
b. Drawing on the number of applicants with disabilities we would like to have
examples of where this has been particularly challenging?
We are undertaking a review of health and disability at all stages of education and
training. Your answer will help inform the review.
We have only advised a very small number of prospective applicants that they
would not be able to achieve desired competencies: an example is a student
who was registered blind and with worsening sight.
8
Domain 4 - Student selection
10.
Your 2011 response regarding student selection is pre-populated in the box
below.
We have not made any significant changes since last year to the selection tools
used.
Has your process for student selection changed since 2011?
Yes
Please provide an update in the box
below.
No
Please skip this question and go to
question 11.
Please only update this if there have been changes.
NA
Your answer will help us keep up-to-date with current practice across all schools. We
have commissioned a literature review of research into student selection and, once it
is complete, we have agreed to undertake a joint programme of work with the MSC.
11.
Please indicate below the school’s approach to admissions for students from
lower socio-economic groups.
Your recent submission to the GMC has provided information to this question. For
example, your response to Question 10 concerning Target Medicine (TM) in the
contextual information questionnaire may be useful.
As part of our commitment to sharing practice on student selection, we specifically
would like to share practice on widening access. Your answer will help us understand
current practice across all schools.
a.
Please tick all that apply
Standard
admission
route only
Extended medical
degree
programmes, e.g.
foundation year
Adjusted
grades (on
basis of
contextual
data)
Guaranteed
interviews
(on basis of
contextual
data)
Ring fenced
places (on
basis of
contextual
data)
Other
b. If ‘other’, please provide a brief explanation with links to further information.
(Please do not include approaches based solely on outreach activities.)
Relaxation of threshold requirement from BMAT scores and prior educational
achievement in selection for interview
9
c. If applicable, please give details of any outreach activities your school
undertakes.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/wideningparticipation/activities/activitybooklet
d. How do you identify (eg what contextual data or other information do you
use) applicants as being eligible for each of the widening access schemes and
routes you provide?
Central UCL Admissions and Outreach Office provide information about applicant
participation in WP activities and lists of partnership and underperforming
schools.
* For 2012 entry applicants for medicine were also flagged if they were under 21
and UK domiciled, permanently living in a Polar 1 or 2 category neighbourhood
and be taking or have taken A levels (or equivalent) at a state school below the
national average for A level performance (per entry) for two of the last three
available years.
e. For the 2012/13 intake, please state the number of the applications received
which can be identified as coming from lower socio-economic groups and how
you have identified them as such.
We want to understand how schools are monitoring progress on widening access, eg
UCAS data. Where possible, we will collate responses to begin to build a picture
across all schools.
56 using the criteria identified above*
f. And of these, how many were accepted?
15 offers made for 2012 entry, 1 for 2013 entry; 11 enrolled in 2012/2013 session, 1
accepted for 2013.
12.
For the 2012/13 intake, please state the number of new students entering
your course from the below types of institution.
We hope to gather more information about the educational and social background of
students admitted to medical programmes. This will help us to establish the current
composition of students in medical education, and this also helps us to understand
progress on widening access.
UK state
school
UK
independent
school
UK FE college
Any non-UK
institution
UK HEI
132
104
34
37
15
10
13.
Do you have a graduate entry route for Dentistry programme graduates?
The Article 24 of the European Directive 2005/36/EC defines the period and
expectations of basic medical training. This question helps us to assure that all
medical schools are in compliance with European regulations.
Yes
No
If you do not have a graduate entry route, please
skip this question and go to question 15.
a.
If you have a graduate entry programme, please give details of your
admission policies or arrangements regarding the school’s graduate entry
route for Dentistry programme graduates.
NA
b.
How many students admitted to the school were through this route for
the 2012/13 intake?
NA
c.
How many years of study are normally required for students admitted
through this route?
NA
14.
Do you allow Arts (and Non-Science) graduates to enter the programme
through the graduate entry route?
Yes
a.
No
If you do not allow Arts (and Non-Science) graduates to enter the
programme through graduate entry route, please skip this question and
go to question 15.
Please give details of your admission policies or arrangements.
NA
b.
How many Arts (and Non-Science) graduates were admitted to the
school through this route for the 2012/13 intake?
NA
Domain 5 - Design and delivery of curriculum including assessment
15.
Please use the below table to update us on any changes that have taken
place within the school regarding processes, curricula and assessment systems in
11
the previous MSAR, this also includes any major changes which have been planned.
Please also let us know the key drivers for these changes. (Your recent submission
to the GMC may have partially answered this question, please use the submission
where possible when responding to this question. For example, your response to
Question 2 in the contextual information questionnaire may be useful.)
X
Assessment
Systems
Curricula
Processes
Standard 81 of Tomorrow’s Doctors states that the curriculum must be designed,
delivered and assessed to ensure that graduates demonstrate all the specified
‘outcomes for graduates’. In order for the GMC to mitigate any risks of not meeting
standards in Tomorrow’s Doctors, we hope to gather early indication for any
changes which were planned or developed across medical schools. We use this
information to assure the meeting of standards and to provide additional support if
necessary.
Changes
New Organisation of Personal Tutor
System
X
X
Reorganised system to ensure students
have the same tutor for 2-3 years with
clear handover between tutors and
clear reporting structures.
Administrative support streamlined and
clarity of relationship to student support
systems emphasised (automatic referral
possible through Years 4-6). 60 new
tutors recruited and trained. All existing
tutors given training in new system.
Expansion of the NHS NES e-portfolio
use into Year 5 (with introduction in
Year 6 planned for 2013/14).
Extension of the case of the month VLE
activity to Year 4.
Drivers for
Change
Supporting the
new integrated
curriculum. UCL
requirement.
Supporting the
new integrated
curriculum,
preparing
students for
contemporarily
practice (New
curriculum
mission).
Emphasis on
synthesis of
learning as part of
new curriculum
12
project.
Opportunity to
focus on new
areas such as the
NHS, safety, etc.
X
Introduction of new elements of
synthesis and professional practice
vertical module in quality and safety,
the NHS and e-health/health
informatics.
Recommendations
in Tomorrows
Doctors 2009 and
as part of
preparing
students for
contemporary
practice (New
curriculum
mission).
X
Introduction of new Year 5 of new
Part of overall
new curriculum
curriculum planned for 2013/14. New
plans.
curriculum introduced in Years 1,2,3,4,
and 6 in 2012/13 but delayed for one
year in what will become Year 5 for
curriculum factors (to avoid students
entering Year 5 from what was old Year
3 duplicating some subjects and missing
others). This new Year 5 is based
around the life cycle and includes a
range of new foci including men’s
health, dying, and a patient pathway.
X
Introduction of mother and baby patient
pathway planned for 2013/14 as part of
final phased introduction of new
curriculum in Year 5. Students will
follow a mother through the final month
of pregnancy and the first 6 months of
baby’s life.
One of 4 patient
pathways central
to the new
curriculum to
improve the
quality of patient
contact and
patient
involvement in
the curriculum
and to tie in
MBBS to the local
academic health
science centre
research,
13
education and
practice priorities.
Focus on health
systems and how
patients follow
care pathways
delivered by
multiprofessional
teams in
preparation of our
students for
contemporary
practice (New
curriculum
mission).
X
Introduction of a post finals SSC. The
movement of finals in 2012/13 means
the course is not yet complete in the
post finals period. A range of SSCs have
been introduced in this 4 week period
with a vocational flavour including some
shadowing opportunities. Not all
students however will complete an SSC
in this time. Those who fail finals at first
attempt will undertake a directed
revision SSC. Those who have
undertaken a substantial pre-approved
project over one or more years of the
programme in their own time equivalent
to or greater than 4 weeks of full time
study and can clearly identify generic
skills development in association with
this activity will be able to take this time
off in recognition of this sustained
activity (examples include undertaking
the student psychotherapy scheme,
being a president in the students union,
being an executive member of a major
peer led , academic supported scheme
such as Target Medicine, Sexpression
etc.)
Curriculum
reorganisation
around the timing
of finals.
14
X
Change in Year 5 assessment
organisation. New integrated end of
year assessment introduced to replace
three, end of module assessments in
old curriculum.
Integrated
assessment
required to align
with curriculum
changes.
X
Change on Years 1 and 2 assessment
practice. Withdrawal of modified essay
questions, revamp of data interpretation
paper in Year 1, introduction of
formative OSCE style practical
assessment in Years 1 and 2 in 2012/13
with a view to moving to a summative
OSCE style paper in Year 2 in 2013/14
and better alignment of the OSCE and
data interpretation assessment hurdles.
Assessment
strategy,
preparing our
students for
contemporary
assessments, best
evidence
assessment
practice.
X
Change in Year 6 assessment
organisation. 2012/13 - Moving finals
to an earlier part of Year 6 to allow a
resit assessment in same academic year
for those students in category 2 (close
fail). Part of overall project to move
finals to significantly earlier part of final
year (March) to allow students to better
focus on preparation for practice and to
allow student who fail at first sitting to
undertake a meaningful period of study
as well as a resit opportunity in the
same academic year. Due to university
regulations the earliest this more major
change in programme can be
introduced in 2014/15.
Giving students to
best possible
chance of success
and the ability to
take up their
allocated
Foundation post,
part of improving
preparation for
practice focus of
Year 6 including a
second
shadowing
opportunity.
Domain 6 - Support and development of students, teachers and the local
faculty
16.
Requirement 135 of Tomorrow’s Doctors states that schools must be able to
give a student an alternative degree if their academic and non academic
performance is not in question but decides to leave the course. How does your
school meet this requirement?
15
We are interested in instances where the school has decided that the student is
unsuitable for a career in medicine for any reason including their performance,
health, disability or professionalism. We are also interested in hearing about what
schools do if the student decides themselves that medicine is not the right career for
them.
With intercalated BSc in Year 3, students who wish to leave the course during Years
4 to 6 already have an “alternative degree”. We have had a student in this situation
very recently and the student was satisfied to be leaving with an iBSc.
All students who express a wish to leave the course are seen for counselling by a
Faculty Tutor on at least one occasion (usually more), offered an appointment with
UCL Careers Service who have a specialist adviser for the MBBS and all are given an
exit interview.
Within a month of being asked to leave the course the student is offered an
appointment with the Careers Service.
17.
Requirement 136 of Tomorrow’s Doctors states that schools should advise on
alternative careers for students who do not meet the necessary standards in terms
of demonstrating appropriate knowledge, skills and behaviour. Please give examples
of where you have provided guidance to a student who has not been able to
complete the course due to varying reasons and what the outcome was for that
student. If you have never had to do this, please give an outline as to what services
you would provide to a student in these circumstances.
We are interested to know about the support you provide to students who have not
been able to complete the course. This data will be used in our review of health and
disability across all stages of medical education and training and our ongoing work
on student fitness to practise.
a. Please give details of how you assist students, through your careers guidance
service, who are unable to complete the course due to health/disability
reasons.
Students are offered the opportunity to have a one hour careers guidance
discussion which could include:
- helping them to come to terms with the changes they are facing
- discussing their options (eg changing course, gaining work experience in
alternative sectors, barriers they may face)
- helping them to draw up and implement an action plan where appropriate
- signposting them to other student support services and agencies for advice
on specific health/disability issues if appropriate.
A follow up session is offered two to three weeks later to review progress
16
b. Please also let us know what career support you would provide for a student
who has been removed from the course for disciplinary reason through fitness
to practice. Please let us know if you have provided this support in the past.
c. Please give details of how you assist students, through your careers guidance
All students (regardless of the reason for leaving) are offered the opportunity
to have a one hour careers guidance discussion which could include:
- helping them to come to terms with the changes they are facing
- discussing their options (e.g. changing course, gaining work experience in
alternative sectors, barriers they may face)
- helping them to draw up and implement an action plan where appropriate
A follow up session is offered two to three weeks later to review progress
This support has not been provided in the past.
We have had only one student leave the course as a result of FtP within the
last 5 years and she received the same support as described in 16.
service, who are unable to complete the course due to academic reasons.
UCLMS does not make a distinction between reasons for leaving. All students
are offered the opportunity to have a one hour careers guidance discussion
which could include:
- helping them to come to terms with the changes they are facing
- discussing their options (e.g. changing course, gaining work experience in
alternative sectors, barriers they may face)
- helping them to draw up and implement an action plan where appropriate
Motivational factors are discussed in some depth to undercover underlying
issues that could impact on the student’s decisions and the advice provided.
A follow up session is offered two to three weeks later to review progress
18.
The GMC has developed arrangements for recognising trainers to incorporate
consideration of the training they have received and their performance as trainers.
While the scope for formal recognition of undergraduate trainers is restricted, for the
first three parts of Question 18 we are seeking a wider review of current
arrangements to consider our arrangements in context. We will analyse the
information received, report back to schools and consider the implications when
17
reviewing the impact of trainer recognition. The information provided here will also
be used to help future implementation of the proposal.
What are your current arrangements for:
a. Identifying trainers? Please also describe any plans to develop these
arrangements.
UG teachers who have leadership roles have all been actively recruited and
interviewed, this happened as part of the new curriculum.
Those with significant roles in UG medical education may also have an honorary
contract, recognising their contribution; this is done by application and approval by
UCLMS Executive Committee.
b. Training for trainers? Please also describe any plans to develop these
arrangements.
Your recent submission to the GMC has provided information to this question,
therefore your response to Question 5 in the contextual information questionnaire is
pre-populated in the box below. Please add additional information if you wish to
provide recent updates.
Requirements: The potential medical education faculty is vast, with the majority of
teachers (75%) being employed by the NHS rather than UCL. Staff development is
therefore a central part of our mission and is supported by robust mechanisms for quality
monitoring and improvement. We are working towards all those with leadership roles in the
MBBS programme having formal accreditation as a teacher. In particular:
Within the Division:
All faculty members are encouraged and supported to undertake at least a PG
Certificate in Education. The majority of senior staff hold or are working towards
Masters- or Doctoral-level education qualifications and have had support from the
Medical School in terms of assistance with fees and time off for study.
All Medical School faculty members are strongly encouraged to become fellows or
senior fellows of the Higher Education Academy. Over 85% of Medical School
academic staff now hold this nationally-recognised award for teaching. The Medical
School assists with the application process and fees.
For all Medical School teachers;
The Medical School runs an extensive programme of development for clinical
teachers (the TIPS programme).
The Medical School has introduced staff development activities to run alongside the
regular teaching committees.
The Medical School co-hosts a Masters in Medical Education, jointly with the Royal
College of Physicians.
Current teacher training provided:
Teaching Improvement Project Systems (TIPS)
18
This includes seven courses about improving a range of teaching skills.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/medicalschool/postgraduate/tips
RCP/UCL MSc in Medical Education
CALT courses http://www.ucl.ac.uk/calt/profdevs
Accreditation workshops - The Medical School runs twice yearly courses to support
teachers wishing to become fellows of the Higher Education Academy or the Academy of
Medical Educators.
Introduction to Teaching in Primary Care (ITTPC)
http://store.london.ac.uk/browse/extra_info.asp?compid=2&modid=5&prodid=185&deptid=
157&catid=2
Medical education and seminar series
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/medicalschool/postgraduate/events
Trusts’ own courses and conferences and individual programmes offer training on their own
courses.
All these programmes are formally evaluated
c. Reviewing the performance of trainers? Please also describe any plans to
develop these arrangements.
The identified body of academics will have education as a core component of their
annual appraisal.
d. To help us understand how your school is currently doing in accordance with
the Implementation plan for recognising trainers, could you please use the
following table to set out your timeline for implementation (see paragraphs
160-164 of the Implementation plan). Please add rows as needed for
additional milestones you have identified (3-6).
19
Implementation plan for trainer recognition – [Name of Medical School]
Please note that responses to this section will be published on the GMC’s website.
Milestone
Confirm that criteria and systems
are in place and ready for data
entry (milestone set by GMC)
Identified activities
Criteria and personnel
identified medical school
and at the LEPs
Resource implications
Completed
Confirm that full information has
been entered for all trainers in the
two undergraduate roles requiring
recognition in light of the medical
school’s criteria and that these
trainers have all been categorised
as provisionally or fully recognised
(milestone set by GMC)
Survey of staff completed
for those in leadership
roles in MBBS
Provisional report (Dec
2012) indicates that
approx 20% need support
to acquire formal
accreditation.
LEPs currently being
requested to provide
details of teaching
qualifications
80% of current staff are
currently categorised as
fully recognised
Survey of these sites will
depend on their response
Confirm that all trainers in the four Training activities are in
Staff and time out of
th
roles, or entering any of the two
place (one 10
clinical/academic duties
undergraduate roles, are fully
December) and two in
recognised ie have met the
June 2013 to support
medical school’s criteria, without
those needing to achieve
use of interim concessions
formal recognition of their
(milestone set by GMC)
roles.
Dependencies
Risks
Date
By 31 July
2013
Non engagement
By 31 July
2014
Non engagement
By 31 July
2016
20
[Please add another 3-6 additional
milestones to be determined by
the medical school]
Completion of audit of educational
credentials of all staff teaching our
medical students
Support for the achievement of
the necessary credentials for
clinical and non clinical staff in
leadership positions
Review of all honorary contracts
for staff with teaching
commitments
21
Domain 7 – Management of teaching, learning and assessment
19.
Are you involved in the reconfiguration of healthcare services (or changes in
LEPs, Deaneries or Local Education Training Bodies in England)? If applicable, do
you have plans in place to respond to them? Are there any plans to minimise impact
on the quality and delivery of medical education?
Your responses to both Question 3 and 4 (your response to Q4 is pre-populated in
the box below) in the contextual information questionnaire have provided
information to this question. Please extend it further if necessary to provide
additional details to reflect other perspectives addressed in this question.
This question generally reflects changes in England, however schools outside
England may also use this question to update other similar but localised scenarios.
The Medical School Director, the lead for undergraduate programmes and the
Academic Lead for Community-Based Teaching at UCL were members of the working
group to develop the shadow LETB. The shadow LETB has now been established and
has a small and widely representative membership. As there are two medical schools
in the LETB group the membership of the shadow LETB is shared with the Queen
Mary, University of London (QMUL) representative. The Director of the Medical
School continues to meet regularly with the LETB Chair outside of these meetings to
ensure the Medical School is kept up-to-date with developments and the needs of
UCLMS are not overlooked. There are some concerns that the current focus of the
LETB is on secondary care but it is hoped that primary care members of the new
board will support appropriate developments of both undergraduate and
postgraduate primary care education and training.
22
Domain 8 – Educational resources and capacity
20.
Could you tell us if you have any concerns with regard to funding
arrangement in the sector? If relevant, have you taken any steps to minimise the
impact of these concerns such as budget cuts?
We have real concerns about the continuity of funding for medical education in our
partner Trusts. This has resulted from the huge changes in the sector, and the
uncertainty over the processes to be used to manage education money in the LETB.
To mitigate the risk, we have been developing a close relationship with the LETB
leadership. Professor Dacre sits on the LETB Transition Board, and we are working
hard to assure medical school representation on the eventual LETB. In the interim,
we continue to work with the SHA, NHS London, in anticipation of what will be
coming next, making it clear that we would like to have a say in the use of the
education funds by our LEPs.
We are setting up meetings with our LEPs, and the SIFT manager to review and
discuss their response to the MPET review changes, and to stress the importance of
continued delivery of high quality education. We are working to ensure that
excellence in medical education forms a significant component of the LEPs vision and
strategy. This has been achieved so far at UCL, the Royal Free Trust, and
Whittington Health.
We have modelled (approximately) the actual amounts needed to deliver the
teaching, excluding the Facilities component of SIFT, and are confident that we can
work within the proposed new tariff. We have been working with the LEPs for a
number of years towards transparency of the income from SIFT, and continue to
have site based meetings, chaired by the site sub deans, and attended by Trust
Board staff or their representatives to discuss this.
Domain 9 – Outcomes
21.
Are there any initiatives which you can share with us with regard to tracking
your students that graduated from your school? This includes tracking students in
relation to the Foundation Programmes and postgraduate training, and in respect of
any determinations by the GMC?
Criterion 172 of Tomorrow’s Doctors states that schools must use data on the
progress of their students post-graduation in their quality management processes.
We have identified that meeting this criterion is particularly challenging for some
schools, therefore we hope to support schools by exploring any notable practice.
Foundation
Programmes
The Foundation School Director who is also Postgraduate Sub
Dean to the Medical School discusses UCLMS trainees
encountering problems with progression/completion of F1 with
the Medical School Faculty Tutor and/or Sub Dean for Welfare.
The FS Director has access to UCLMS Medical Student files.
23
Discussion has been initiated to create a group to consider
UCLMS graduates who subsequently have progression issues
both locally and in other Foundation Schools, but this group
has not yet been formalised.
One aspect needing to be resolved is whether such a group
would discuss current Foundation trainees, or only discuss
experiences retrospectively so as to inform Medical School
processes to reduce the risk of lack of progression in
Foundation.
Postgraduate
training
Any
determinations
by the GMC
The Progression Review Committee of the North London
Foundation Schools (at the London Deanery) discusses issues
of progression anonymously. This shares experience of
reasons for lack of progression and also approaches to
remediation. At the last meeting it was agreed that Leads from
the North London Medical Schools would be invited to attend.
This will allow common initiatives/audits to be done.
None currently
The Foundation School Director provides information on
trainees when requested from the GMC. Some requests have
come through the Medical School from the GMC. There has
been no formal process for logging or analysing such
approaches, but the process described previously would, when
initiated, have this aspect as one of its responsibilities.
Additional questions
22.
Please tell us about any risks or challenges related to the implementation of
Tomorrow’s Doctors. The first row is an example.
This question gives you the opportunity to explain any instances where you may be
struggling to comply with a particular standard or any challenges to compliance that
can be foreseen. If you have identified any challenges/risks please try and map them
to a Domain and Standard from Tomorrow’s Doctors.
Domain /
Standard
What is the risk / challenge and what action is taking place (if
applicable)?
Domain 3
TD 60
Risk: The school does not collect its own equality and diversity data and
relies on the University to highlight issues as and when they arise.
Action: We have developed an information sharing agreement that
means the school receives equality and diversity data at the start of the
24
new academic year.
Please see MBBS Risk Register Document (Doc3)
23.
Please tell us about any innovations you are piloting or potential areas of
good practice, particularly successes or effective actions taken in implementing
Tomorrow’s Doctors to potentially share with other schools.
This section has been pre-populated with information from question 6 of your recent
submission to the GMC, please can you provide further details ie mapping of
domains for each items. Please add rows to provide additional items which you wish
to tell us.
We particularly want to hear of any instances of good practice, as defined on page
27 of the Quality Improvement Framework (QIF). Please detail the relevant
Tomorrow’s Doctors domain when giving examples. If you would like to be
considered for a case study, please check the box at the end of question 24.
Domain
Example of Good Practice
PPI
The Beacon Project submitted as one of the
examples of good practice and the Framework for
Patient and Public Involvement in UCL Medical
School: Recommendations for the MBBS 2012
(document 6.a - Public Engagement in the Education
of TD 09 - Beacon Project)
Further details of good practice testimonials can be
found in the Patient Engagement Good Practice
Summary (Doc4)
Quality Assurance
Organisation / co-ordination of quality monitoring
via the Medical Education Providers Annual Return
(MPAR), and targeted visits.
Teaching/learning/assessment Medical Education Conference and seminar series
E learning
Lecture-casting and e-portfolio extended to all years
24.
Throughout this return we have asked for examples of good practice and
examples of how schools have used GMC guidance to improve their practices and
processes. We would like to conduct case studies on successes, if you would like
your school to be considered as case study please check the following box:
25

Deadline: 31 December 2012 for:
Section A (Word) – MSAR qualitative questions
Section B (Word) – QABME/QIF visits requirements (if applicable)
Section C (Excel) – Worksheets
If you have any queries about any aspect of the MSAR, please contact Greg Liang or
another member of the quality team in the first instance at quality@gmc-uk.org, or
020 7189 5332.
26
MSAR 2012 – Section B
Mandatory updates on requirements and recommendations from previous QABME or current QIF visits
This section is only for schools that were required by previous QABME or current QIF visits to updates requirements and
recommendation in this year’s MSAR.
Please note that responses to this section may be published on the GMC’s website.
1. For all requirements listed below please provide an update indicating how they have been addressed. For all requirements
listed below please provide an update indicating how they have been addressed.
Tomorrow’s
doctors area
Visit Type
& Date
GMC
Ref.
Requirement
Action taken – If
none, explain why
Contact &
Email
Supporting
documents list
Timeline
27
2. For all recommendations listed below please provide an update indicating how they have been addressed.
Tomorrow’s
doctors area
Visit Type
& Date
GMC
Ref.
Recommendation
Action taken – If
none, explain why
Contact &
Email
Supporting
documents list
Timeline
28