Workforce Development Committee Meeting
18 June 2013, Regional Genetic Service, Birmingham
Women’s Hospital
Present:
David Baty (DB -Interim Chair)
Professional Group Chair for Genetics – Academy for Healthcare Science (AHCS).
Jennie Bell (JB),
Previous experience with the CMGS Training and Accreditation Board (TAB) and the Genetic
Education and Training Board (GETB); role with the National School of Healthcare Science.
Fiona MacDonald (FM)
Involved with TAB and is an assessor for Association of Clinical Scientists (ACS); current
chair of the RCPath assessors and involved in higher specialist scientist training.
Eileen Roberts (ER)
Previously involved with the ACC Education and Training Board (ETC) and the GETB;
currently involved with MSC and the development of training for career framework 2-4.
Frances White (FW)
Experience with the GETB; currently involved with band 3 training.
Jake Miller (JM)
Involved with AGTC, ETC, MSC curriculum development and GETB
Julie Atkey (JA)
Cytogenetic training officer in Leeds; has lots of training experience and is leading on MSC
delivery in Leeds.
Alison Taylor-Beadling (ATB),
Training officer at GOS, involved with MSC and final exit assessments.
Amanda Clarkson (AC),
Cambridge, long interest in education and training; doing PhD in workforce development in
Genetics.
David Bourn (DBo)
Previously involved with TAB and chair of GETB; responsible for collection of workforce data
and with higher specialist scientist training.
Nicola James (NJ),
Genetic Technologist rep on ACC Council; involved with development of technologist training.
Jo Martindale (JMa – Secretary),
Training officer in Sheffield for 12 years; leading on MSC delivery with Polly Talley
(Cytogenetics).
Apologies
Gareth Cross
Anneke Seller
Gail Norbury
Lorraine Gaunt
Victoria Stinton
Emma Clark
Deborah Gray
Rhian White
DB welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the ACGS Workforce and Development
Committee (WDC), saying there was a lot of work to be done around workforce development
and education and training. It was extremely heartening to have so many people wanting to
be involved. There was a huge amount of knowledge and experience represented by the
group and he looked forward to working with everyone. It would be important to establish the
most efficient way of working with such a large group, but DB envisaged everyone being
involved with the work of the WDC and perhaps developing small working groups to take
forward specific topics. It would be desirable to draft a workplan for the next 12 months.
Several members of the WDC were also involved with other bodies. DB stated that if any
apparent conflicts of interest arose during discussions; people should declare them.
The ACGS will formally come into existence once final endorsement has been received from
the Charities Commission. An ACGS Executive Committee meeting is scheduled for the 25th
June in Edinburgh.
National training and development landscape in Healthcare Science
It is anticipated that this group will be the primary focus for training and workforce
development for the ACGS and its members. DB stressed that the WDC would build on the
excellent work undertaken previously by the GETB, including the development of training
programmes for career framework for bands 2-4, statutory registration for Genetic
Technologists and collaborative working with key groups involved in training, education and
workforce development. These groups include:
The Academy for Healthcare Science (AHCS) which is principally involved in
assessing equivalence, establishing registers for those healthcare staff not currently
registered and developing career stage 2-4 programmes.
The Association of Clinical Scientists (ACS); currently working closely with AHCS on
routes to registration.
The National School for Healthcare Science (NSHCS) plays a key role in developing
and monitoring progress of the various MSC curricula.
Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath); primarily with FRCPath and HSST.
It is important for the ACGS that the WDC and its members are up to speed with the work of
the key stakeholders and how we can work collaboratively with them. The WDC will be the
focus for all enquiries to the ACGS about workforce development and training issues and we
must ensure that we effectively represent the needs of the ACGS members.
Structure and working of committee
DB wanted to ensure that the new WDC had appropriate representation from the various staff
group working in Genetics. The group felt that either a representative or advisor with
experience in bionformatics would be helpful might be useful. JM and JB to approach
suitable individuals..
The committee discussed a representative from career grades 2-4. All agreed that we should
perhaps develop / bed in the WDC first. A lot of band 4 staff are “overqualified” so may not
be truly representative. Look at what other HCS professions are doing with regard to grade
2-4 representation.
All felt that a trainee rep would be valuable There are RCPath and STP trainee reps on
various committees and DB agreed to ask Nicola Williams to put out a call for a trainee
rep to sit on WDC.
Terms of reference and remit for the WDC
A draft ToR drawn up by DB was circulated to everyone prior to the meeting. DB went
through the ToR in detail and made changes to the document as agreed by everyone
present. He agreed to circulate the revised ToR to WDC once he had made the agreed
amendments.
DB hoped to have the amended ToR available to ratify at the ACGS Exec meeting on the 25 th
June. It is important that the ToR of the WDC is in the same format as those from the other
committees being led by Sandi Deans (Quality), Dom McMullan (Scientific) and Simon
McCullough (Communications). There should be active engagement with any interested
parties and formalisation of an agenda with circulation to membership.
The meeting went on to discuss the remit of the group and the roles and responsibilities of
WDC members – small working groups in line with other committees, need to agree a high
level work plan and define priorities for the WDC. Some amendments/additions were made to
the remit of the group.
Accountability of the WDC
Covered in ToR; agreed that the WDC through the Chair or Chair Elect shall represent views
of the membership and be accountable to the ACGS Exec.
Continuing the work of the GETB
DB expressed his thanks to all members of the GETB and in particular to Jenny Bell, David
bourn and Gordon Lowther. He stated that the achievement of the GETB could not be
overstated. It was the first joint committee in Genetics dedicated to training and was
responsible for breaking down the cyto/molecular barriers. It is very heartening that so many
former GETB members want to continue with the WDC. DB felt it important that the work
strands of the GETB be picked up by this committee, including:
NSHCS themed boards – suggested as a standing agenda item on WDC agendas.
The 2-4 career framework, which is an important area of work as the service develops.
Support development of OSFAs – this group is to work with the NSHCS and the AHCS and
the themed boards to assist with the OSFA process. WDC involvement in the OSFA process
is very important. This year’s OSFA date is 8th August. It would be helpful to develop further
assessors and appropriate training is important. All agreed to discuss the OSFA process and
how the WDC can help at the next committee meeting.
The Royal College of Pathologists is currently considering a maximum interval of 7 years
between FRCPath parts 1 and 2. Exceeding this maximum, would mean that the candidate
would need to sit the part 1 exam again. This proposal is being considered by RCPath
Council. The part 1 examinations for Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics will merge in
2015, although there will be some choice.
Complete merger for part 1 is aspired to by 2018 but part 2 will take longer. Some of the
ACGS membership is undecided as to whether it is better to wait for the joint examination or
sit it while exams exist in cyto and molecular.
The Clinical Bioinformatics STP curriculum is to be approved by this committee. There will be
a focus on year 1, with a curriculum review in January 2014. The WD committee needs to
take a high-level view and consider whether the proposed modules will deliver the desired
outcomes.
It was agreed that approval could be given in principle but that the committee must take an
overview and obtain feedback from labs delivering training. Any changes are to be
highlighted.
Richard Billings and Gillian Manning are leading on the Bioinformatics curriculum
development.
DBo is currently collecting workforce data from the labs for 2012/13. Workforce data is
required to inform planning but it can be difficult to get age details and likely retrials. which
cannot be used to inform likely retirements. DBo will send out a reminder to all labs stressing
the importance of sending in this data.
Support for commissioning of training posts; in the past data has been shared with the Centre
for Workforce Intelligence and the RCPath.
Registration for GTs
The mechanism to achieve appropriate registration status for Genetic Technologists has been
a long-standing issue. DB thanked Michelle Fenlon and others involved with the Voluntary
Registration Council (VRC) and the Association for Genetic Technologists (AGTC) for their
hard work over the years. He stated that GT registration should be a key priority for the new
WDC. JM welcomed this and asked how we could take this forward.
The AHCS in collaboration with the VRC and other voluntary registers is working to establish
a register of staff in Healthcare science who are not currently registered with the Health and
Care Profession Council (HCPC). This umbrella voluntary register will be accredited by the
Professional Standards Authority. The AHCS is proposing voluntary registers for technical
staff, not registered as a Biomedical Scientist but will in future look to develop registers for
career grade 2-4 staff as well as those exiting HSST.
Currently a number of undergraduate degrees in healthcare science have been accredited
such that those exiting as Practitioners will be eligible to apply to HCPC as Biomedical
Scientists. This is obviously of concern considering qualifications, knowledge, skills and
experience of our GTs who cannot achieve registration with HCPC.
DB therefore suggested that a formal approach be made to IBMS to explore the feasibility of
establishing a working party to look at mapping standards of Biomedical Scientists and
Genetic Technologists. All those present at the meeting agreed to this approach. DB would
raise this at ACGS Exec meeting to obtain approval to proceed.
There is a question around the role of the AGTC now that the CMGS and ACC will be
replaced by ACGS. It still has a role around gatekeeping of the VRC, and could take on the
assessment role for applications to the VRC? Any AGTC workstreams that have not already
been picked up by another group should be taken on by the WDC. The good work of the
AGTC is recognised and we must ensure adequate representation on the WD committee. DB
agreed to contact Michelle Fenlon and BJ Borghams to discuss role for AGTC.
Career framework 2-4 training
All agreed that this would be an important workstream for the WDC. Shirley Fletcher has
looked at NOS and what is already out there in terms of training modules for this group of
staff. She has approached HEIs and City and Guilds amongst others.
This framework is quite well developed for levels 2 and 3, less so for 4.
Level 2 – Assistant Practitioner
Level 3 – Associate Practitioner
Level 4 – modules expected to contribute to a foundation degree. These would
include personal e.g attributes etc., themed (Pathology) modules, functional modules.
A decision needs to be made as to whether the framework was fit for purpose in developing
school leavers. It is, but not so appropriate for existing staff. There is an intent for
equivalence but it is uncertain when this will be. The AHCS hope to establish a voluntary
register for this group of staff. It seems that the framework is becoming overlapped with
apprenticeship (which does not currently exist) and it is unclear what the equivalence
mechanism is. All new NVQs are accredited within the Qualifications and Credit Framework
(QCF).
Shirley’s framework has been done from the perspective of setting up a course and is not
necessarily appropriate for pre-existing staff. There may be some value in looking at current
2-4 staff and their qualifications. These posts are aspirational, but it takes a lot of effort to
develop school-leavers. Guided learning hours need to be factored in. This is a remit for a
subgroup of this committee with technologist involvement. Concerns, including the impact on
Genetics, need to be highlighted. ER to lead on this and JA would like to be involved –
there is the possibility of 8 apprentices in Leeds this autumn. It is likely that their Genetics
background will be limited or at an inappropriate level; there is a significant level of skill
required for many tasks at CF 2-4. Deborah Gray may wish to be involved but is currently on
maternity leave. Competence-based training would be ideal. This committee needs to
highlight the requirement for something fit for purpose.
Workplan
The following priorities for the WDC were agreed by the group:
GT registration
Career framework for levels 2-4
Higher specialist training for scientists and practitioners
Should we reconsider the concept of a lead Training Officer for ACGS, to form a team of
training officers? It would be more of a coordination role / point of contact. This ties in with
CPD and developing pre-existing staff. Identify particular training needs and link with the
committee to organise appropriate training. There used to be good training days and annual
training officer meetings.
JB is happy to organise another training officer meeting and maybe identify someone willing
to take on a lead training officer role; also get useful feedback on e.g. what aspects of training
don’t work. Anyone interested would need to be aware that the lead training officer would
need their Head of Department’s support and this is difficult without knowing the full scope of
the role. It is a good idea in principle but needs to be practicable – what is needed for the
role, what would we consider important? The lead training officer would be a conduit for
communication and coordination.
Bioinformatics: some concerns regarding content and the curriculum has been updated. JB
will circulate the latest version.
CPD / cross training and RCPath
Is this a role for this committee? e.g. part 1 study days. There has been a significant dip in
the number of candidates this year. Birmingham is still happy to run the study days. Part 2 is
more problematic as there is a very small pool of examiners. JB suggested sending out a
request. Exit from HSST should lead to FRCPath.
Cross training / rotation may be essential for GT registration purposes. There is a lot of
confusion and clarity is required. This may be clearer when we know if the IBMS route is
possible.
Communication
All agreed that effective communication was vital. This will be clearer once the remit of the
ACGS Communications committee has been defined. There will be a dedicated WDC
presence/link on the ACGS website. We need to get the ToR and minutes out as soon as
possible, as well as information for the membership about the WDC committee members.
Other areas of communication to explore are ways to show what careers in genetics are like
to for example school students, involvement in National Pathology week and focussed study
days etc. to be advertised on the website.
Who do we communicate with, and at what level?
AOB
DB advised that travel expense claims should be sent to Kevin Ocraft (ACGS Treasurer Nottingham).
All agreed that teleconference meetings were useful but felt that the next meeting of WDC
should be in person. Birmingham appeared to be best venue for everyone to reduce travel.
JB agreed to look at room availability and circulate dates.
Summary of action points








JM and JB to identify suitable individuals as Clinical Bioinformatics advisors to WDC.
DB to contact Nicola Williams as ACGS Secretary to ask for trainee rep to sit on
WDC.
DB to amend ToR and circulate to group.
DB to seek ratification of ToR from ACGS Exec.
To to obtain agreement from ACGS Exec for approach to IBMS.
DB to contact Michelle Fenlon regarding AGTC.
ER to lead on career stage 2-4 training.
JB to look at room availability in Birmingham for next WDC meeting.