ARCP Panels

What’s is all about?

What is ES doing when deciding on the outcome of an educational review? Making a recommendation to the ARCP panel

based on your expert knowledge of the trainee

3 outcomes: satisfactory

unsatisfactory

panel opinion requested

ES Recommendation

ES knows trainee best ES expert recommendation is usually most

important piece of evidence used by ARCP panel in determining outcome

Usual outcomes should be satisfactory or unsatisfactory

Only use POR if genuinely unsure

Satisfactory - ideal!

All assessments complete and the trainee has performed to the required standard

Learning Log is of an acceptable quantity and quality

PDP is active and SMART No concerns in MSF, PSQ, CSR or Educator’s

notes

When to ask for a panel opinion?

‘Genuine uncertainty’ For a second opinion NOT for a ‘telling off’ ? Discuss with TPD first Try to avoid in January if possible

ARCP Panel

Sits once per year in June No routine panel in February Special panels may be convened in particular

circumstances or for those out of step in training Every trainee must have an ARCP review in a 12

month period All of training must be covered by an ARCP ARCP must be informed by an ESR that is less

than 2 months old

WOS: 3 stage procedure

Level 1 Screening panel TPD ? discussion with AD All trainees scrutinised If satisfactory progress 3 possible outcomes:

1 satisfactory progress

6 completion of training

8 OOP Any concerns or missing evidence referred to

level 2

Level 2: Electronic panel 1 or 2 TPDs from other programmes + Trainer + lay

person + admin rep +/- RCGP External Advisor Detailed scrutiny of e-portfolio +/- additional

evidence Outcomes:

1 satisfactory

6 completion of training

5 unsatisfactory additional training may be required (letter re concerns, 2 weeks to reply with an action plan, ES/TPD monitor)

referred to level 3 (face to face interview)

Level 3: Face to face interview May consider additional evidence/extenuating

circumstances ? Health problems Made up of Assistant Director, TPDs, Trainers,

lay reps, NES admin staff +/- RCGP EA Further scrutiny of evidence

Level 3 outcomes:

1 satisfactory 6 satisfactory completion of training CCT 2 unsatisfactory, specific competencies

needing developed, no additional training 3 unsatisfactory, specific competencies and

additional training required (remedial) 4 removed from training (must have had

previous outcome 3 at some point).

Right of review of outcome 2 and appeal of outcomes 3 and 4

Step 1 appeal

Original panel meet to re-consider evidence available.

Usually has new chairperson Trainee re-interviewed Can uphold or overturn original decision

Appeals panel

Dean or another GP Director Lay rep External RCGP rep TPD (different specialty) Senior trainee (different specialty)

Reconsider all evidence.

Re-interview trainee, call informants (ES, TPD, AD)

Trainee can be accompanied

Decision is final.

ARCP Outcomes:

1 – Satisfactory progress 6 – Satisfactory progress completion of training

5 – Unsatisfactory progress - additional training time may be required (missing evidence)

2 – Unsatisfactory progress no additional training time required

3 – Unsatisfactory progress additional training time required (remedial)

4 – Unsatisfactory progress removed from training

8 – Out of programme

Trainee cases for discussion

Appoint a chairperson Consider the evidence What more information may have been helpful? What are the main issues for this trainee? What questions would you ask at interview What support would be available/appropriate? Indicative outcome Next stage for trainee

Specific Requirements:

Panel make specific recommendations for areas to be focused on in next 6 months

Specify minimum number of assessments to be undertaken (may be more than RCGP standards)

May make suggestions re educational activity/exam preparation

Recorded on ARCP form for trainee signature.

Common issues at Interview:

Trainee not engaging despite advice Repeated exam failure Multiple MRCGP component failure Dyslexia assessment advice Lack of insight Trainee feels unsupported by ES/Training Practice Underperformance despite remediation Trainee health problems