education committee agenda for the meeting to be held · pdf fileeducation committee . agenda...

Education Committee

Agenda for the meeting to be held on Wednesday 3 May 2017 at 10am

1. Welcome and Apologies for absence

2. Declarations of interest

3. Minutes of meeting held on 1 February 2017 Paper attached

4. Matters arising

5. Education Department update a. Education department update

b. Presentation on RCVS visits

Oral report Oral report

6. CPD a. CPD Audit update

b. CPD pilot update

Paper attached Oral report

7. Strategic Plan

a. Strategic Plan b. Graduate outcomes

Paper attached Paper attached

8. Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice

a. Report of sub-committee meeting held on 11th April

Oral report

9. Statutory Exam Proposals To follow

10. Primary Qualifications Sub-Committee (PQSC)

a. Report of sub-committee meetings held on 29 March 2017

b. Surrey Report c. Adelaide Report d. St Georges Report e. ENQA appeal procedure

Paper attached Paper attached Paper attached Paper attached Paper attached Oral report

11. Future Committee Profile Paper attached

12. Advanced Practitioner

a) List of approved Advanced Practitioners b) Additional Designations

Paper attached Paper attached

13. Specialist

a) Additional designations

Paper attached

14. Fellowship

a) Fellowship Board Update

Oral report Paper attached

EC March 17 Agenda / 4

b) Fellowship appeals process

15. Diploma Exams Update Paper attached

16. Any other business

17.

Date of next meeting 4 October 2017 at 10am.

Britta Crawford Committee Secretary April 2017 [email protected] 020 7202 0777

mailto:[email protected]


Education Committee membership

Professor David Argyle

Dr Niall Connell

Professor Susan Dawson (Chair)

Professor Gary England

Professor Tim Greet

Mr Douglas Hutchinson

Dr Jacqui Molyneux

Dr Susan (Sue) Paterson Ops Board member as observer: Dr Bradley Viner Chairs of Education Sub-Committees: Ms Clare Tapsfield-Wright, PQSC

Professor Jill Maddison, CertAVP Chair of Advanced Practitioner Panel: Dr Kit Sturgess


Full terms of reference agreed by Council June 2015 1. The Education Committee shall set the policy for undergraduate and postgraduate education and

training of veterinary surgeons and determine the requirements for those seeking registration, for the award of qualifications under the Charter, for continuing professional development, and for recognition as RCVS Advanced Practitioner and RCVS Specialist.

2. The Committee shall develop and keep under review education and training requirements for

registration, and in particular shall:

- define "day 1 competences" and advise on the content of the veterinary undergraduate curriculum;

- oversee the approval process and ongoing monitoring of veterinary degrees and international

recognition agreements, considering sub-committee reports on appointment of visitors, visitation reports, follow-up reports and annual monitoring reports from veterinary schools, sub-committee reports on overseas degrees from other accrediting bodies, and sub-committee reports on operation of the statutory membership examination;

- make decisions on recognition of registrable veterinary degrees;

- make recommendations to Council on the regulations governing the statutory membership

examination and on the regulations governing practice by students. 3. The Committee shall develop and keep under review policy for continuing professional

development, revalidation and postgraduate training and qualifications, and in particular shall:

- define "year 1 competences" and monitor the postgraduate development phase;

- set the requirements for and monitor continuing professional development within the profession;

- develop and maintain a framework of College postgraduate awards, receiving reports from

sub-committees on the standards for College-awarded certificates, diplomas and fellowships, examinations and accreditation of other recognised postgraduate qualifications as part of the framework;

- define the requirements for RCVS Advanced Practitioner and RCVS Specialist status,

receiving reports from sub-committees on the maintenance of lists for Advanced Practitioners and Specialists; and

- recommend to Council amendments to the certificate and diploma and Fellowship bye-laws.

The Committee shall recommend fees to the Operational Board for candidates, examiners and visitors, Advanced Practitioners, Specialists and Fellows.

EC May 17 AI 03

EC Page 1 / 9

Education Committee Minutes of the meeting held on 1 February 2017

* Absent

Apologies for absence and welcome

1. Apologies were received from David Argyle and Jill Maddison. Declarations of interest 2. There were no additional declarations of interest.

Present: *Professor David Argyle Dr Niall Connell Professor Susan Dawson - Chair Professor Gary England

Professor Tim Greet Mr Douglas Hutchison Dr Jacqui Molyneux Dr Susan (Sue) Paterson Dr Bradley Viner - Operational Board Dr Chris Tufnell - President Mr Nick Stace - CEO By invitation: Dr Christopher (Kit) Sturgess - Advanced Practitioner Panel Chair Dr Clare Tapsfield-Wright - PQSC Chair *Professor Jill Maddison - CertAVP Sub-Committee Chair Professor Stephen May

Professor Mike Herrtage Miss Lucie Goodwin

- Chair of CPD policy working party Chair of Diploma Sub-Committee Council Member

In attendance: Mr Duncan Ash - Education Officer Mrs Britta Crawford - Committee Secretary Miss Laura Hogg - Administrative Officer Miss Anne Jermey - Education Manager Mrs Jenny Soreskog-Turp - Education Officer Ms Chris Warman

Miss Katie Westbrook - -

Director of Education Education officer - PDP

EC May 17 AI 03

EC Page 2 / 9

Minutes

3. The minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2016 were received and noted. Matters arising

4. The Chair reminded members that they should inform the Education department if they feel any

matters should be added to or changed on the risk register. The departmental risk register will be made available, in confidence, for the next meeting.

Veterinary Education in India

5. The President and the CEO reported on their exploratory trip to India as a fact finding mission with an aim of sharing information on accreditation and allied professions. India has 90,000 vets on the Veterinary Council of India register and 44 veterinary schools, producing an average of 80 vets each per year. The focus is on agriculture but with an expanding market for treating companion animals. The Veterinary profession has lower status in India compared to the UK but is highly trusted by the public. India is 142nd on the World Bank’s list of ‘ease of doing business’ which would be challenging.

6. The British Council is very keen to see the RCVS make progress and it may be a useful test case for the RCVS. The British Government may also be willing to provide some funding to support this venture.

7. The Committee noted that other veterinary bodies are also exploring opportunities in India and that it would be useful to co-ordinate efforts and to share information. Universities may also have contacts in India and there are Commonwealth schemes for research which it could be useful to consider the potential for future collaboration.

Education department update 8. The Director of Education, Ms Chris Warman, gave an oral update on the work of the Education

department.

9. It was reported that the RCVS and BSAVA Working Party for the review of PDP met in December for an extremely constructive meeting and the research project has now gone out for tender. Tenders need to be submitted by the end of February.

10. Chris Warman, Ben Myring and Anthony Roberts will be going to Brussels to attend a meeting with Pierre Lekeux, the Director of EAEVE. The objective is to share thoughts on the challenges which lie ahead post Brexit, and to gauge the opinion of EAEVE. There is no intention to reach any agreement at this point but it is hoped this will lead to a further meeting in May when EAEVE has its annual congress at RVC. This would provide a chance for a wider group including RCVS President and EC Chair and EAEVE President to discuss the issues and to agree any actions that we wish to pursue jointly.

EC May 17 AI 03

EC Page 3 / 9

CPD: Audit Update

11. The Committee received and noted the paper which gave an update on the 2016 CPD Audit.

12. 1396 vets were asked to submit their CPD records for 2013 - 2015 as part of the audit. The

response rate was 87 % compared to a response rate of 76% in the 2015 audit.

13. 74% of the respondents were compliant with the RCVS CPD requirement, which is lower compared to previous years but that is partly due to changes in the audit process. This is the first audit where records have been called in from non compliant vets from the previous audit and from vets who confirmed that they were non compliant as part of the annual renewal. These two groups have the highest percentage of non compliance compared to the other groups.

14. Education Committee noted the update and that a full analysis of the CPD audit and the plan for the next audit will be presented to the committee in May.

CPD: Update from the CPD referral group 15. The committee noted the minutes from the CPD Referral Group’s meeting on the 4th January

2017.

16. The committee was pleased with the group’s progress regarding the non respondent vets. The referral group was set up in September 2015 so it is still a new process, but the group is following set procedures for each case to ensure consistency and working closely with the Professional Conduct Department to make sure that the necessary evidence is collected in order to bring cases to Preliminary Investigations Committee and Disciplinary Committee. The Committee noted that the first case of a nurse taken to DC had resulted in a 2-month suspension.

CPD: Update on the CPD pilot

17. The CPD pilot will start in March and 116 veterinary surgeons and nurses have volunteered to be

part of the Pilot. The volunteers have been invited to attend an induction day at the RCVS on the 28th February or the 1st March 2017. Following the induction meeting, volunteers will be asked to use and provide feedback on the CPD model to help RCVS to refine it and to follow the CPD cycle and provide feedback on the planning and evaluation stages. The Education Committee will be updated about the progress of the pilot at its next meeting.

Strategic Plan Update

18. The Committee was presented with the strategic plan and a brief progress update. A discussion

of the content of the plan and an opportunity to revise or add additional aims and objectives was on the agenda for the afternoon meeting.

Graduate Outcomes

EC May 17 AI 03

EC Page 4 / 9

19. It was reported to the Committee that a review of graduate outcomes is a key aim within the RCVS Strategic Plan, Education Committee Strategic Plan and Vet Futures Action Plan. The review will be a significant piece of work for the RCVS and its partners over the next two to three years, the outcomes of which could have far-reaching consequences for veterinary schools and for the veterinary profession. It therefore needs careful and thoughtful planning, both in terms of its scope and engagement of all key stakeholders, and a realistic timescale in which to carry out the work and to allow for considered decision-making.

20. The Committee were advised that due to the significance of the project it was vital that

recommendations and decisions are grounded in solid evidence and it was suggested that the work should be conducted in three phases: information and evidence gathering; review and analysis; and implementation, with the first phase, information and evidence gathering, to begin in 2017. The project would need to take account of emerging information about the post-Brexit context, which is likely to have an impact on some of the choices that will need to be made. It was proposed that a working group be established in order to steer this first phase of the work, but that group membership should be reviewed at each phase, as different expertise may be needed as the project progresses.

21. The Committee asked about the time horizon for the project and it was suggested that the project

should be looking to consider the needs of the veterinary profession within the next twenty to twenty-five years. The Committee suggested that it may be useful to include a wider range of employers than proposed in the paper and that participants would need to be future-focussed. It would be important to look at the research and literature which was currently being produced, including the VetSet2Go project on employability skills that is being led from Australia and other work on the development of Entrustable Professional Activities.

22. The Committee approved the establishment of a Working Group in order to steer the first phase of this project. The Committee would be given further opportunity to feed in ideas and guide the scope of this project in the afternoon session.

Advanced Practitioner review of criteria

23. The Committee approved a proposal for the establishment of an Advanced Practitioner Working Group in order to review the criteria and guidance in advance of the re-validation in 2019 of the first cohort of Advanced Practitioners to be listed.

24. The Committee noted that this was a critical step and would need to address a number of issues such as candidates only minimally meeting current requirements. It was suggested that it would be useful to have some dialogue with the Specialist Sub-Committee to ensure consistency of approach where possible and appropriate and that the current Chair of the Advance Practitioner panel should be a member of the working group.

Action: Education department to proceed with the set up of the Working Group.

CertAVP: Report of sub-committee meeting held on 7th September

EC May 17 AI 03

EC Page 5 / 9

25. Members were asked to note the report of the sub-committee meeting held on 23 November 2016.

Statutory Exam Review Update

26. The Committee were informed that Council had approved its recommendations for reform of the Statutory Exam and that work was progressing. Those involved would begin to look at the mapping between the exam syllabus and the Day 1 Skills. It was hoped that the exam would be ready by the end of the year and available for first sitting in 2018. The RCVS had written formally to the heads of vet schools to gauge interest in delivering the exam on the College’s behalf. The Committee was informed that this issue would be discussed at the next Veterinary Schools Council meeting and that the outcome of these discussions would be reported to RCVS.

Primary Qualifications Sub-Committee (PQSC) Sub-committee reports 27. The minutes of the PQSC meeting held on 16 December 2016 were received and the Chair

presented a summary of the main points. The report of the visitation to St. George’s University in Grenada was now with the University for its two-month consultation period and would be brought to the next meeting of PQSC in April 2017 before being presented to Education Committee in May 2017. Work had begun on the ENQA application with staff from the Education department and the Veterinary Nursing department currently drafting the self assessment report required ahead of the ENQA site visit, which was likely to take place towards the end of 2017. It was also noted that the timeline for accreditation of the Surrey degree had been agreed with both PQSC and Surrey University, taking into account the need for quick turnarounds on reports and reduced consultation periods, and it was suggested that this timeline be presented along with the preliminary visitation report at the Education Committee meeting in May.

28. The Committee was presented with and ratified several visitor names:

Nottingham visitation (Professor Gary England abstained from ratifying these names): Ms Amanda Boag (Chair) Professor Ed Hall Mr Fred McKeating Mrs Jo Oultram (Observer)

Charles Sturt visitation: Dr David Wadsworth

Surrey visitation: Miss Hannah Mason (student representative)

Murdoch University Visitation Report

EC May 17 AI 03

EC Page 6 / 9

29. It was reported to the Committee that the RCVS had participated in a joint visit to Murdoch University College of Veterinary Medicine in July 2016, and the final visit report was presented for review. PQSC had discussed the report in detail and noted that there were a number of minor deficiencies reflected in the report, however it was accepted that the School needed to be given the chance to rectify these deficiencies, in line with the recommendations given by AVBC.

30. At its autumn 2016 meeting, the AVMA Council on Education accredited the School with a minor deficiency in Standard 2 – Finances, and Standard 3 – Physical facilities and equipment. In was noted that AVBC had written to the School explaining that progress with addressing these deficiencies must be demonstrated through an annual report to be considered by VSAAC in June 2017, and if these were not felt to be satisfactory by this point then through a subsequent report to AVBC by November 2017.

31. PQSC subsequently recommended to Education Committee that Murdoch University be granted “Accreditation for a shorter period” for one year, subject to a satisfactory report by November 2017, and that RCVS would reserve the right to revisit the school should the report be unsatisfactory. Education Committee agreed this recommendation and RCVS would write to Murdoch University with its decision.

Action: RCVS to write to Murdoch University with the decision that the school is granted “Accreditation for a shorter period” for one year, subject to a satisfactory report by November

2017, and that RCVS reserves the right to revisit the school should the report be unsatisfactory.

James Cook University Visitation Report

32. Following the RCVS decision to grant James Cook University the status of “Accreditation may be

denied” at its last visitation, a full AVBC revisit had been conducted in July 2016, with two RCVS visitors in attendance. At its meeting on 17 November 2016, AVBC considered the visit report and agreed to grant the veterinary programme the status of “Accreditation with minor deficiencies”. AVBC subsequently wrote to JCU outlining the next steps required and indicated that the deficiencies must be rectified within one year.

33. It was noted that both RCVS visitors and PQSC were in agreement that the School had

demonstrated great improvement since the last visitation.

34. Education Committee agreed the recommendation that JCU be granted “Accreditation for a shorter period” for one year, subject to a satisfactory report by the end of 2017, and that RCVS would reserve the right to revisit the school should the report be unsatisfactory.

Action: RCVS to write to James Cook University with the decision that the School be “Accredited for a shorter period” for one year, subject to a satisfactory report by the end of

2017, and that RCVS reserves the right to revisit the School should the report be unsatisfactory.

EC May 17 AI 03

EC Page 7 / 9

Intercalation

35. Following review of the annual monitoring reports, PQSC had commented that RCVS should be looking to support universities in increasing the numbers of intercalating students across all schools, given that the RCVS was promoting the diverse opportunities for graduates with veterinary degrees. It was pointed out that within the medical profession, the NHS funded the extra year for students who wished to intercalate, and RCVS might wish to consider whether it would be appropriate for it to approach DEFRA, HEFCE and the Wellcome Trust for funding to pursue a similar line.

36. It was suggested that, in the first instance,, it would be helpful to gather evidence about career paths of students who have intercalated. It was also suggested that whilst it was possibly more appropriate for the VSC to tackle this issue, RCVS could certainly assist.

Medunsa

37. A request was made for an update on the situation with Medunsa. It was noted that the last contact had been with Daryl Abernethy in mid-2016 over the possibility of issuing a letter of equivalence to Medunsa students. He had been proposing to take the issue to his faculty board for further discussion. However, there had been some student protests at universities in South Africa which had demanded attention from senior personnel and this had delayed any response from Pretoria. No further action could be taken until a response had been received.

Future Committee Profile 38. At its meeting in October 2016, Education Committee agreed, in principle, proposals for a skills-

matrix approach to the appointment of committee members, on the basis that any matrix should be seen as a guide and not a ‘straightjacket’. The approach was subsequently agreed by Council in November 2016.

39. Education Committee had agreed to consider the detail of the skills matrix and had been provided with a pro-forma to help this process.

40. Following discussion, it was agreed to remove the final section of the listed skills as these could be taken as read and to re-present the second section in a format that would allow people to more easily self-assess their skills. The skills in the first section were agreed with the addition of a ‘food safety’ category. It was also agreed that the matrix should contain some idea of currency of skills and also allow for members to indicate a willingness to undertake training in some areas.

41. A revised matrix will be produced and circulated by email for completion by each member of the Committee. The results of this will be collated to identify any skills/knowledge gaps and will be shared with the committee at its next meeting.

ACTION: Education department to produce and circulate skills matrix by email for completion by Committee members

List of Approved Advanced Practitioners

EC May 17 AI 03

EC Page 8 / 9

42. The Committee noted the list of 32 Advanced Practitioners approved by the panel in November 2016.

Additional Designations

43. The committee discussed whether Endoscopy and Endosurgery was an appropriate designation for Advanced Practitioner status following a request from Harper Adams to approve its post graduate certificate. It was agreed that although the certificate meets the size and level requirements, this covered an area much narrower than other qualifications that had been agreed as appropriate to the status, and could be described as a “technique”, which could be added to an existing qualification.

44. The Committee agreed it was reasonable to decline the application at this point but to inform Harper Adams that RCVS will be reviewing the criteria and guidance for Advance Practitioner status. This will allow an opportunity to clarify the policy on the recognition of qualifications and to think through the full potential implications of agreeing designations of this nature. It would also be important to discuss the issues with the Specialist sub-committee, as to whether it is sustainable, in principle, for there to be a narrower designation for Advance Practitioner status than any agreed for Specialist status.

Specialist sub-committee

45. Members received and noted the report from the recent meeting of the Specialist Sub-Committee and approved the additions to the Specialist list following the latest round of applications.

46. Professor England also sought the Committee’s views on the definition of what it meant for Specialists to be ‘active’ – the issue had been raised at the sub-committee meeting as it had been reported that certain Specialists were considering letting their status lapse as they did not feel that they were active enough in traditional practice sense of seeing and treating animals, but still contributed greatly to their disciplines. Education Committee agreed that this should be interpreted in the wider sense. The application documentation and associated guidance would be updated to reflect this.

Fellowship Board

47. Mr Ash updated the Committee on the recent meeting of the Fellowship Board. The minutes would be circulated at the May meeting of Education Committee. The key points were that the Board had confirmed that it did not wish to pursue the re-introduction of an Honorary Fellowship but supported the development of other routes to conferring honours and that, following an invitation by Council to re-consider the need for an appeals process, had agreed that a process-focussed procedure would be appropriate.

48. Mr Ash also reported that 37 applications for the Fellowship had been received to date and that numbers were expected to increase prior to the deadline of 10 February.

Fellowship Sub-Committee 49. The report from the meeting of the Fellowship Sub-Committee that had taken place via

correspondence was received and noted.

EC May 17 AI 03

EC Page 9 / 9

50. Education Committee recommends to Council the awards of Diploma of Fellowship: i) By Meritorious Contributions to Learning, to Dr Anthony Lepper MRCVS, in the subject of

“veterinary pathology, veterinary bacteriology and mycology, and veterinary immunology”

ii) By Thesis, to Mr John Burford MRCVS, titled, “Risk factors for recurrence of colic in a post-operative equine population”

Any other business 51. There was no other business

Date of next meeting

52. 3 May 2017 at 10am

Britta Crawford Committee Secretary October 2016 [email protected]


EC May 17 AI 06a CPD Audit

Meeting Education Committee

Date 3 May 2017

Title 2016 Monitoring of Registered Veterinary Surgeons’ CPD Audit

Classification Unclassified

Summary This paper provides the analysis of the 2016 audit of CPD records of veterinary surgeons.

Decisions required To agree:

• The suggestions for the 2017 CPD audit • An admin fee as one of the sanctions available to the CPD

Referral Group

Attachments Annex A: Analysis of audit outcomes

Author Jenny Soreskog-Turp

Senior Education Officer 0207 202 0701

[email protected]


EC Unclassified Page 2 of 14

Background

1. In February 2017, Education Committee received a paper about the progress of the 2016 CPD audit of Veterinary Surgeons. This paper contains the full analysis for the group of vets that were asked to send in their CPD records and raises some of the issues that have been identified through the audit process.

Outcomes of the audit

2. Letters were sent in September 2016, to a total of 1398 veterinary surgeons, including:

a. Group 1: Any vet on the Practicing register that did not tick the box confirming CPD compliance for two consecutive years. (583)

b. Group 2: A random sample of 400 self-certified “CPD compliant” vets. c. Group 3: Vets who submitted a return in 2015 but fell some hours short of the overall

requirement. (125) d. Group 4: Any vet that was included in the 2015 CPD audit but did not respond to any

communication from the RCVS (98). e. Group 5: Any vet who did not respond to any communication re PDP (68) f. Group 6: Any vet that selected ‘no- they are not compliant’ as part of the 2016 annual

renewal.(124)

3. Responses were received from 1210 vets (87 % compared to 76% in 2015 and 81% in 2014):

a. 795 vets whose records show that they are compliant with the CPD requirement for the three year period 2013-2015 (66 % of respondents).

b. 104 vets who did not reach the CPD requirement for 2013-2015, but are compliant with the CPD requirement for 2014-2016.

c. 311 vets whose records show that they are not currently compliant, but 60% of whom have provided a full explanation for this.

4. 188 vets have not responded to either the initial letter requesting their records or to the

subsequent reminder. Non-compliance

5. 311 vets were not compliant with the CPD requirement of 105 hours over 3 years (either for

the years 2013-2015 or 2014-2016). 40% did not give any reason for being non-compliant. The main reasons for non-compliance were:

a. Not kept any CPD records (14%) b. Illness (8%) c. Family commitments (6%) d. Maternity leave (6%) e. Semi-retired (6%) f. Lost records (3%)


6. Vets that were non-compliant, recorded an average of 56 hours over the three years. For a majority of vets in this group (81%) this was the first CPD audit they were included in. The average hours of CPD for non-compliant vets included in their first audit was 46 hours compared to 60 hours for vets that had been included in three audits.

Analysis of CPD records and key issues 7. Annex A provides a further analysis of the audit results.

8. The median number of CPD hours across the groups was 118. The mean number of hours

was 165. The range of hours was 0-2997. Whilst 2997 was the maximum number of hours recorded in the 3-year period covered by the audit, there were several records that showed between 1000 and 2000 hours (approximately) of CPD.

9. 148 vets had recorded less than 10 hours over the three years. The majority (59%) were either included in Group 1 or 5.

10. The breakdown of CPD hours by age shows that the percentage of compliance is higher in the younger age groups compared to the older groups (although, the numbers of vets in the older age groups are lower).

11. There are a number of vets who are semi-retired or who are undertaking a very small number of hours of work per week, sometimes unpaid, who have not realised that CPD requirements apply to anyone who is on the ‘practising’ list, no matter how little work they do. Some may now consider coming off the practising list (indeed, a small number already have), although we need to make it clear that this means they can no longer undertake any veterinary related work at all (whether paid or unpaid). Also, some vets who are still on the practising register but are no longer doing any clinical work did not think that the CPD requirement was relevant to them and/or they could not see the benefit to them of doing any CPD. We need to communicate clearly on both these issues to ensure that the requirements are understood.

12. The breakdown of CPD hours by years on the register show that vets that have been on the

register less than 6 years have the highest percentage of compliance, followed by vets that had been on the register between 7 to 12 years. Compliance fell by almost ten percent in the group of vets that had been on the register for more 30 years and then continued to decline the longer they had been on the register. Vets who had been on the register for more than 50 years had the highest percentage of non-compliance but this was a small group of 16 vets.

13. 69 % of all respondents were using the PDR compared to 59% in the 2015 audit. 82% of PDR users were CPD compliant compared to 76% of non PDR users.

14. The most common types of CPD activity were the different kinds of formal learning such as,

Studying for an External Qualification, attending Lectures or Seminars/workshops. These three activities accounted for 43 % of all recorded CPD hours.


15. The most popular activity for both compliant and non-compliant vets was attending external lectures. The biggest difference between the two groups is that ad hoc reading accounts for 15% of non-compliant vets’ CPD hours compared to 6% for compliant vets. From 2016 all CPD activities need to be documented so even though reading can still be counted as CPD it needs to be documented.

Non Respondents

16. The youngest and the older age groups were more likely respond to the RCVS’ audit requests, but they were also the smaller groups. 29 % of the non respondent vets were between the age of 41-50 years old and 23% between 31-40 years old.

17. Vets who had been the longest or the shortest number of years on the register were more likely to respond to RCVS’ requests. In the groups that had been between 7-39 years on the register between 16-21% in each group did not respond to RCVS’ audit request.

18. Only 28% of the non respondent vets had completed the annual declaration form as part of the 2016 renewal, which could mean that we do not have correct contact details for all vets in this group.

CPD Referral Group

19. 23 vets who had been included in three audits but not responded to any audit requests have been referred to the CPD Referral Group.

20. The next meeting of the CPD Referral Group is on the 23rd May and Education Committee will receive a progress report at its next meeting in October.

21. In May 2016 the Education Committee agreed a series of sanctions available to the CPD

Referral Group. It felt that the feasibility of introducing a financial penalty should be explored, as other regulatory bodies use these successfully, but that it should be referred to as an administration fee to cover the costs of chasing non-compliant/non respondent members.

22. The registrar has confirmed that we can charge an admin fee if we so wish. Education Committee is asked to agree the introduction and level of an administration fee as one of the sanctions available to the CPD Referral Group.

Next steps

23. It is proposed that the next audit of CPD records should take place in September 2017 and include:

a. Any vet on the Practicing register that did not tick the box confirming CPD compliance for two consecutive years.

b. A random sample of 400 self-certified “CPD compliant” vets. c. Vets who submitted a return in 2016 but fell some hours short of the overall

requirement.


d. Any vet that was included in the 2016 CPD audit but did not respond to any communication from the RCVS.

e. Any vet who did not respond to any communication re PDP f. Any vet that selected ‘no- they are not compliant’ as part of the 2017 annual renewal.

24. Education Committee is invited to discuss this paper and agree:

o The introduction and level of an administration charge as a sanction available to the CPD Referral Group

o The proposals for the 2017 CPD audit

EC May 17 AI 06a CPD Audit

Annex A

Included in sample Responded

Responded % Compliant % Top up %

Total Compliant % NC %

Group 1 583 481 83% 349 73% 34 7% 383 80% 98 20% Group 2 400 393 98% 319 81% 31 8% 350 89% 43 11% Group 3 125 101 81% 33 33% 13 13% 46 46% 55 54% Group 4 98 61 62% 29 48% 4 7% 33 54% 32 52% Group 5 68 65 96% 37 57% 13 20% 50 77% 15 23% Group 6 124 109 88% 28 26% 9 8% 37 34% 72 66% Total 2016 1398 1210 87% 795 66% 104 9% 899 74% 311 26% Total 2015 931 711 76% 502 71% 64 9% 566 80% 145 21% Total 2014 4885 3981 81% 2854 72% 410 10% 3264 82% 717 18%


Records returned Non compliant Compliant PDR 832 69% 146 18% 686 82% Emailed recprds 199 16% 52 26% 147 74% Sent records by post 80 7% 16 20% 64 80% No records 99 8% - - - -

Non Compliant reasons

Number of audits for non compliant vets

Avg hours over 3 years

40% No reason

1st audit 253 81% 46 14% no records

2nd audit 21 7% 59

8% Will send records

3rd audit 37 12% 60 7% Illness

6%

Family commitments

6% maternity leave 5% semi-retired 3% Time/opportunity 3% Lost records

2% no longer on the register

1%

Not in clincal practice

1%

Will change status on register

1%

Not on register for relevant years

1% travelling abroad


CPD hours over the 3 years (2013-2015)

All Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 6

0-10 105 40 11 8 15 1 30 11-50 43 12 7 10 4 4 6 51-80 126 40 19 30 7 12 18 81-104 144 43 38 23 5 10 25 105-120 217 79 80 18 14 9 17 121-200 355 164 145 7 10 20 9 201+ 220 103 93 5 6 9 4 Range: 0-2997 Median: 118 SD:221

Average number of CPD Hours

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0-10 11-50 51-80 81-104 105-120 121-200 201+

All

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 6


Average over 3 years

Non Compliant Compliant Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6

2016 165 56 222 182 193 102 100 178 73 2015 59 25 77 63 66 40 37 93 22 2014 58 23 76 67 68 34 31 55 22 2013 51 16 69 57 61 31 31 30 29

Age

Total 0-10 11-50 51-80 81-104 105-120 121-200 201+ NC C 26-30 156 2 4 12 19 26 53 40 37 119 1% 3% 8% 12% 17% 34% 26% 24% 76% 31-40 361 16 9 39 40 73 106 78 104 257 4% 2% 11% 11% 20% 29% 22% 29% 71% 41-50 254 20 10 26 26 41 85 46 82 172 8% 4% 10% 10% 16% 33% 18% 32% 68% 51-60 236 33 13 24 36 42 58 30 106 130 14% 6% 10% 15% 18% 25% 13% 45% 55% 61-70 102 18 3 14 7 16 33 11 42 60 18% 3% 14% 7% 16% 32% 11% 41% 59% 71-80 25 10 1 3 3 5 2 1 17 8 40% 4% 12% 12% 20% 8% 4% 68% 32% 81-90 6 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 83% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 83% 17%


Years on register Total 0-10 11-50 51-80 81-104 105-120 121-200 201+ NC C 3-6 250 7 5 21 28 44 88 57 61 189 3% 2% 8% 11% 18% 35% 23% 24% 76% 7-12 288 13 11 30 34 55 50 95 88 200 5% 4% 10% 12% 19% 17% 33% 31% 69% 13-19 226 14 7 28 24 44 62 47 73 153 6% 3% 12% 11% 19% 27% 21% 32% 68% 20-29 195 23 7 21 23 31 70 20 74 121 12% 4% 11% 12% 16% 36% 10% 38% 62% 30-39 172 23 10 16 28 30 46 19 77 95 13% 6% 9% 16% 17% 27% 11% 45% 55% 40-49 63 14 3 9 6 11 15 5 32 31 22% 5% 14% 10% 17% 24% 8% 51% 49% 50 + 16 11 0 1 1 2 1 0 13 3 69% 0% 6% 6% 13% 6% 0% 81% 19%

Non respondents

Age

Years on register

Total

Total 26-30 12 6%

3-6 24 13%

31-40 43 23%

7-12 36 19% 41-50 54 29%

13-19 40 21%

51-60 37 20%

20-29 34 18%

61-70 28 15%

30-39 30 16%

71-80 13 7%

40-49 19 10% 81-90 1 1%

50 + 5 3%


All Compliant

Non Compliant Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6

Undocumented private study 7% 6% 15% 5% 7% 15% 11% 4% 17% Clinical audit activity 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% Discussion group 3% 4% 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% 1% 5% Distance learning - formal 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 3% 1% 9% 4%

Distance learning - informal 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%

Distance learning - webinar 5% 5% 9% 3% 6% 7% 7% 3% 8% Lecture by external provider 21% 20% 30% 19% 22% 22% 24% 15% 29% Mentoring or being mentored 8% 8% 3% 9% 7% 3% 7% 8% 7%

Practical - clinical skills lab 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% Practical - wet lab 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Preparing a new lecture/presentation 3% 3% 1% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% Project 2% 2% 0% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% Reading - planned 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 4% 2% 1% Research - clinical 4% 4% 0% 3% 6% 1% 1% 0% 1% Research - scientific 4% 4% 0% 5% 1% 0% 2% 19% 1% Research - veterinary business 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Secondment 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Seeing practice 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 7% 4% 1% Seminar/ workshop 9% 9% 11% 9% 9% 7% 11% 13% 8% Studying for External qualification 13% 14% 8% 13% 13% 23% 13% 10% 4% Training - in house 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 5% 2% 4% 6% Training as examiner 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

All

Compliant

Non Compliant


2016 2015 2014

Undocumented private study 7% 8% 7% Clinical audit activity 1% 0% 1% Discussion group 3% 4% 3% Distance learning - formal 8% 6% 10% Distance learning - informal 1% 1% 2% Distance learning - webinar 5% 4% 3%

Lecture by external provider 21% 17% 14% Mentoring or being mentored 8% 7% 8%

Practical - clinical skills lab 2% 1% 1% Practical - wet lab 1% 1% 1%

Preparing a new lecture/presentation 3% 3% 3% Project 2% 1% 2% Reading - planned 2% 3% 2% Research - clinical 4% 1% 3% Research - scientific 4% 4% 5%

Research - veterinary business 0% 0% 0% Secondment 0% 0% 0% Seeing practice 2% 2% 4% Seminar/ workshop 9% 9% 8%

Studying for External qualification 13% 20% 12% Training - in house 4% 4% 9%

Training as examiner 0% 0% 2%


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2016

2015

2014

EC May 17 AI 07a Strategic Plan

EC May 17 Unclassified Page 1 / 12


Date 3 May 2017

Title Education Committee strategic plan: update on progress


Summary A brief progress update against aims within the Education

Committee Strategic Plan is attached.

The plan has been subject to minor amendment following

discussion at the afternoon meeting of the Committee on 1

February.

Decisions required Education Committee is invited to note progress with particular

aims.

Attachments Update against aims of the Education Committee Strategic plan

2016 - 2019

Author Chris Warman

Head of Education

[email protected]




Veterinary Education: Strategic plan 2016 – 2019: Update

Strategic Aim 1: Promote diverse career opportunities

Strategic

Objective 1A

Actions required Who is

leading?

Complete

by when?

Progress update

Develop a one-stop

shop for careers

advice

Contribute to BVA development of careers

hub

BVA TBA VF Action G: Online careers hub (BVA to co-ordinate)

College plan B: Leadership and Innovation point 1

Meeting held at BVA, 16 December 2016. The Hub will

draw together information from a wide range of sources

by providing links to a range of materials where these

are available. It will aim to meet the needs of a number

of different audiences, from school children and their

parents to practising veterinary surgeons who might be

looking at career options at any stage of their careers.

Strategic

Objective 1B

Actions required Who

should

lead?

Complete

by when?

Progress update



Consider building

career development,

appraisals etc. into the

practice standards

scheme

Explore what is currently part of this scheme

and where these issues could be integrated

RCVS VF Action G: Online careers hub (BVA to co-ordinate)

College plan B: Leadership and Innovation point 1

VF Action T: Consult on mandatory practice standards

inspection

College plan C: Continuing to be a First-rate regulator,

point 5

Already references to team development and

appraisals within the ‘awards’ sections of the PSS.

Consultation on mandatory practice standards

inspection is planned as part of the RCVS Strategic

plan for 2017-19.

Strategic Aim 2: Explore whether the current veterinary degree is fit for purpose

Strategic

Objective 2A

Actions required Who is

leading?

Complete

by when?

Progress update

Review the veterinary

degree to understand:

- whether we

are developing

the skills and

knowledge

that the vets of

the future

need

Evidence gathering (literature) RCVS but

involving

many key

partners

Aim to

complete

information

gathering

phase by

end 2017

VF Outcome I: Review outcomes for graduates (RCVS

lead, with the VSC, AVS and employers)


point 6

Paper presented to Education Committee on 1

February 2017. Establishment of working group

agreed, plus initial terms of reference and approach to

begin work with a workshop with the working group and

Fact finding (applicants, students, graduates,

employers)

Tracking decision-making in students and

career choices

Explore legal issues and barriers, impact on

international students and accreditation, re-

skilling and disarticulation of graduation and

L

i

m

i

t

e

d

l

i

c

e

n

s

u

r

e

(

1

6



- the pros and

cons and

potential

models of

limited

licensure

licensing a wider invited audience. Update paper to Education

Committee on 3 May.

Define different models

Consider wider impact including on Statutory

Membership Examination and on career

routes such as specialist, researcher, food

safety etc.

Strategic

Objective 2B


should

lead?

Complet

e by

when?

Progress update

Develop a model for

EMS provision that is

sustainable financially

and meets the

changing needs of

students and the

profession.

As part of the graduate outcomes project, set

up a cross-party Task and Finish group to

review EMS

RCVS/BVA

/VSC with

students,

graduates

and

employers

TBA VF Outcome J: Review of EMS (RCVS lead, with the

VSC, AVS, BVA, BVA divisions and employers)


point 6

Will form part of review of graduate outcomes.

Refine/clarify the roles of EMS co-ordinators

and administrators and the new VSC group

Explore potential for including EMS in

Practice Standards scheme



Strategic Aim 3: Promote Mental wellbeing in staff and students

Strategic

Objective 3A


should

lead?

Complete

by

when?

Progress update

Examine and

measure impact of

current initiatives

operating in UK vet

schools

Promote educational research VSC

TBA: Agree

with VSC

VF Action N: Support the Mind Matters Initiative

College plan A: Learning culture Gather evidence from UK veterinary schools

and internationally

Strategic

Objective 3B


should

lead?

Complete

by

when?

Progress update

Provide support to

front-line clinical

teachers

Mental health awareness training VSC TBA: Agree

with VSC

VF Action N: Support the Mind Matters Initiative

College plan A: Learning culture

Explore the impact of clinical training

programmes on undergraduate training

environment

Explore the impact that residents and interns

have on undergraduate teaching (and role

modelling – already in SOP)

Establishing boundaries – training and

support. Coping with stress.

Explore standards for internships.



Assessment standard setting etc.

Strategic Aim 4: Ensure Statutory Membership Examination is sustainable and fit for

purpose

Strategic

Objective 4A


should

lead?

Complete

by when?

Progress update

Bring syllabus content

and assessment

method, format and

delivery into line with

current UK good

practice

Review and update syllabus to reflect current

Day-One Competences

RCVS VF Action K: Support for overseas graduates (RCVS

lead)

College plan D: Global reach, point 3

This work is ongoing: Proposals agreed by Council in

November 2016. Update on implementation on the

agenda for 1 February meeting and full plans being

brought to Education Committee on 3 May.

Consult stakeholders on potential

assessment methods and formats

Finalise proposals and present to

Examinations Board and Education

Committee for agreement

October

2016

Undertake development of appropriate

materials

December

2017

Implement new examination from January

2018

January

2018

Strategic

Objective 4B


should

lead?

Complete

by when?

Progress update

Provide appropriate Develop appropriate support mechanisms RCVS January VF Action K: Support for overseas graduates (RCVS



support to candidates such as:

Video clips of practical examinations

Webinars

Discussion/networking forum for candidates

2018 lead)


This work is ongoing: See above.

Strategic Aim 5: Support postgraduate career pathways

Strategic

Objective 5A


should

lead?

Complete

by when?

Progress update

Review the outcome

of implementing

Advanced Practitioner

status and ensure the

criteria are fit for

purpose

Establish a task and finish group to conduct a

review and make recommendations to

Education Committee

RCVS January

2018 in time

for

publication of

criteria one

year in

advance of

re-

applications

from first

cohort of APs


Proposals on agenda for Education Committee, 1

February 2017. Education Committee agreed to

establish a working group. Kit Sturgess is standing

down as Chair of the AP panel and Dr. Tom Witte has

agreed to take over this role. Dr. Witte will chair the

working group.

Strategic

Objective 5B


should

lead?

Complete

by when?

Progress update

Continue to develop

the Certificate in

Advanced Veterinary

Undertake a programme review of CertAVP RCVS

(through

CertAVP

2017/18 College plan D: Global reach, point 5

This work will happen through the CertAVP sub-

Post

grad

uate

care

er

path

ways

and

supp

ort

(12,

19)

CPD

Adva

nced

Pract

ition

ers

and

Spec

ialist

s

Fello

wshi

p

Lead

ershi

p

(31,

34)



Practice (CertAVP) to

provide a high-quality

post-graduate

qualification for the

profession.

sub-

committee)

committee. Proposals for a programme review will be

discussed at CertAVP sub-committee and presented

to Education Committee in 2017.

Development of CertAVP modules in Oncology is

moving forward.

Review existing and develop new modules

and designated certificates as appropriate,

for example in Oncology

Ensure that synoptic examinations offered by

RCVS continue to be fit for purpose

Further develop quality assurance role of the

CertAVP sub-committee

Strategic Aim 6: Develop lifelong learning in leadership, including mentoring and targeted

leadership programmes

Strategic

Objective 6A


should

lead?

Complete

by when?

Progress update

Establish a generic

mentoring scheme

Commission a review of mentoring schemes

and establish a pilot mentoring scheme

RCVS TBA VF Action P: Online mentoring (RCVS to lead)

College plan A: Learning culture, point 8

Development of an online veterinary mentoring

system is likely to be taken forward through the Mind

Matters initiative. The Fellowship Board wishes to

encourage new Fellows to mentor unsuccessful

applicants. May also consider training Post-graduate

Deans so that they could play a greater pastoral role

in PDP, but will need to consider outcomes of

Gather information from the Academy of

Medical Science and other mentoring bodies



research work.

Strategic

Objective 6B


should

lead?

Complete

by when?

Progress update

Establish a Veterinary

Leadership

programme

Discuss and agree how this should be funded RCVS VF Action Q: Veterinary leadership programme (BVA

and RCVS working with RCVS Fellowship)

College plan B: Leadership and Innovation, point 4

This work is being taken forward by Anthony Roberts.

Review existing programmes (e.g. Cornell)

and those no longer in existence

Agree proposals for a programme and a

timetable for implementation

Ensure D1Cs include appropriate references

to leadership

Strategic Aim 7: Maximise the impact of CPD on professional practice

Strategic

Objective 7A


should

lead?

Complete

by when?

Progress update

Undertake a review of

CPD policy

Establish a task and finish Group to review

policy, consult with the profession on

potential revisions and make proposals to

Education Committee and Council

RCVS November

2016

College plan A: Moving from a ‘blame’ to a ‘learning’

culture, point 7

Council agreed pilot phase in November 2016. Pilot

launched in February 2017 with 116 volunteers, a

combination of those that support the proposals and

those that do not.

Strategic

Objective 7B


should

Complete

by when?

Progress update



lead?

Implement revised

CPD policy

Develop IT systems to support CPD

requirements

RCVS End 2018 VF Action O: Focus on reflective practice (RCVS

lead)

College plan A: Moving from a ‘blame’ to a ‘learning’

culture, point 7.

Results of pilot work will be reported to Education

Committee and next steps agreed based on

outcomes.

Develop guidance to support revised

requirements

Communicate requirements to the

profession

Ensure that monitoring system is in line with

revised policy

Strategic Aim 8: Maximise the impact of PDP in supporting new graduates

Strategic

Objective 8A


should

lead?

Complete

by when?

Progress update

Evaluate impact of

PDP and implement

appropriate

improvements

Review emerging results from research

project (Sheena Warman) to inform

evaluation work

RCVS August 2017 VF Action O: Focus on reflective practice (RCVS

lead)

College plan A: Learning culture, points 2 and 8

First meeting of Working Group took place on 6

December 2016. Tender document was finalised.

Project has been tendered and WPG appointed – first

meeting of working group with researchers to be held

on 24th April 2017.

Commission evaluation work

Implement improvements based on

evaluation findings

Strategic

Objective 8B


should

Complete

by when?

Progress update



lead?

Help employers to

provide support to

new graduates

Research good practice RCVS, with

BVA and

veterinary

associations

TBA VF Action O: Focus on reflective practice (RCVS

lead)

College plan A: Learning culture, points 2 and 8

Programme of work to be agreed to address

outcomes of research project. Seek feedback from employers on the kinds

of support they would find helpful

Make support available to employers and

evaluate impact

Strategic Aim 9: Establish the RCVS Fellowship as a ‘learned society’

Strategic

Objective 9A


should

lead?

Complete

by when?

Progress update

Further develop the

RCVS Fellowship

Monitor the implementation of the new

Fellowship arrangements and make

recommendations for the longer-term

development of the Fellowship

RCVS

(through the

Fellowship

Board)

College plan B: leadership and Innovation, point 3

Next Fellowship day will be on 20 October 2017 at

the Royal Institution. This will be both an award

ceremony and an event to share current research.

Strategic Aim 10: Develop a proactive veterinary-led EU/global agenda where the UK can

lead in public health, education, regulation and improving standards

Strategic

Objective 10A


should

lead?

Complete

by when?

Progress update



Establish RCVS as

an overarching body

for Specialist

registration and

provider of

qualifications for

Europeans to

become Advanced

Practitioners

Discuss with CertAVP providers re

engaging European candidates

CertAVP sub-

committee

reporting to

EC

Ongoing College plan D: Global reach, point 5

Continue liaison with EBVS to harmonise

processes for the recognition of European

Specialists in order to streamline

processes for listing with RCVS as far as

possible

Specialist sub-

committee


Discuss potential for harmonisation of re-

validation processes with Colleges outside

Europe as and when these are introduced

Specialist sub-

committee


Strategic

Objective 10B


should

lead?

Complete

by when?

Progress update

Develop RCVS as a

leading European

accreditation

organisation

Make an application to ENQA for

membership

PQSC

reporting to

EC

September/O

ctober 2017


Work ongoing – visit scheduled for January 2018.

EC May 17 AI 07b Graduate Outcomes

EC May 17 AI 07b Unclassified Page 1 / 3


Date 3 May 2017

Title Review of graduate outcomes: update


Summary This paper updates the Committee on the establishment of a Working Group in order to steer the first phase of this significant project and arrangements for the initial workshop.

Decisions required To note progress with this work

Attachments None

Author Chris Warman

Director of Education 0207 202 0732

[email protected]



Background

1. At its last meeting, Education Committee approved the establishment of a Working Group to

undertake the first phase of this work. It also agreed the approach of holding a workshop prior to the first meeting of the group, the draft terms of reference and membership of the group and noted the outline plan of work.

2. This paper provides a short update on progress with the project.

Membership of the Working Group

3. Key partners in this work are the Vet Schools Council, AVS and employers. To date, the Working Group comprises:

a. Chair: Professor Stephen May b. Professor Susan Dawson and Dr Susan Paterson (Representatives of RCVS

Education Committee) c. Professor Richard Hammond and Professor Susan Rhind (Representatives of the

VSC) d. Ms Hannah Mason and Mr Dave Charles (Representatives of AVS) e. Dr Gudrun Ravetz: BVA President and veterinary surgeon working in industry,

nominated by BVA f. Dr Robin Hargreaves: small animal practitioner and employer, nominated by BVA g. Dr Eleanor Brown, APHA/Defra, nominated by BVA h. Mr Matthew Plumtree, Clinical Director, YourVets (Nottingham graduate, 2011) i. Dr. Liz Mossop, Nottingham Vet School and link with Vet Futures

4. Invitations to join the group have also been issued to a representative of the Major Employers

Group, a further recent graduate and a representative of the medical profession.

Initial workshop

5. This will be held in London on 6 June. The intention, agreed by Education Committee at its last meeting, is to invite the working group, plus a range of other interested parties, to attend the workshop, the primary purpose of which will be to:

a. Review the scope of the work and ensure that all relevant issues are covered b. Facilitate a discussion to air preliminary views on the range of issues c. Clarify the expectations of different stakeholders about the outcomes of the project d. Suggest a framework of guiding principles for the project, which can be further refined

at the first meeting of the working group. Whilst there is no intention to consider solutions to issues at this early stage and broad agreement that the group will need to make as much use as possible of available evidence, a set of guiding principles to act as a reference point throughout the project would be very helpful. This is a complex and multi-faceted piece of work and the process of testing potential solutions against a set of agreed principles may help to build consensus where there are diverse and/or opposing viewpoints.


6. Education Committee is invited to note this update.

EC May 17 AI 10a PQSC

EC May 17 AI 10a Unclassified Page 1 of 7

Meeting

Education Committee

Date

3 May 2017

Title

Minutes of PQSC

Classification

Unclassified

Summary

Minutes of PQSC meeting held on 29 March 2017

Decisions required

None, to note

Attachments

PQSC March 2017 minutes

Author

Jordan Nicholls Education Officer 020 7202 0704 [email protected]




Primary Qualifications Sub-Committee (PQSC) Minutes of the meeting held on 29 march 2017

Welcome and apologies for absence 1. There were no apologies

Declarations of interest 2. No new declarations of interest were given.

Minutes of the PQSC meeting held on the 16 December 2016 3. The Sub-Committee noted the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2016 and agreed

them as an accurate record.

Matters arising

4. There were no matters arising. Surrey Visitation Report

Present: Professor Malcolm Cobb Via Skype

Dr Jerry Davies

Miss Mandisa Greene

Mrs Lynne Hill

Mrs Jo Oultram

Professor Susan Rhind

Mrs Clare Tapsfield-Wright Chair

In attendance: Mrs Britta Crawford Education Manager

Ms Chris Warman Director of Education



5. The draft visitation report following the RCVS year – 3 visit to the University of Surrey in March 2017 was presented to PQSC for review. The report has been to the University for review of factual accuracy. The School has already been informed of the need to respond to this report quickly to facilitate consideration by PQSC and Education Committee at the earliest opportunity and has agreed to a reduced formal consultation period of two weeks.

6. PQSC discussed the progress made by Surrey, asked for a number of points to be reflected in the covering letter to the University and looked forward to receiving the University’s response to the report.

SGU visitation report 7. The visitation report and University response following the RCVS visitation to St. George’s

University, Grenada, in 2016 were presented to PQSC for review.

8. The Sub-committee felt that whilst there were many positive points, SGU had failed to implement any form of EMS prior to the visit despite correspondence assuring PQSC that it would be implemented in good time. Therefore PQSC felt that its only option was to recommend to Education Committee that accreditation should be denied.

9. The category of “Accreditation is denied” applies when RCVS considers that the deficiencies are sufficiently serious that the school should not receive accreditation. The RCVS will inform the veterinary school of its concerns and the grounds on which they are based. The veterinary school would be able to request a re-visit once it had addressed the deficiencies identified.

Action: Recommend to Education Committee that accreditation is not granted to SGU. Adelaide visitation 10. The RCVS participated in the AVBC visit to University of Adelaide School of Animal and

Veterinary Sciences in October 2016: Mrs Lynne Hill attended this visit on behalf of RCVS. At its March 2017 meeting, VSAAC granted the University of Adelaide School veterinary programme with the status “Accreditation with Minor deficiencies”. PQSC was invited to review the final visitation report and make a recommendation to Education Committee on the accreditation status of the Murdoch veterinary degree.

11. PQSC noted that there were a number of issues which needed to be addressed such as poor case numbers and a lack of leadership within the school. The school had improved in many areas but needed to address issues such as how it was going to replace the dairy farm with which it no longer had a connection. PQSC remarked that the there was an imbalance in support staff which were strong in some areas but needed further staff in others, such as veterinary public health.

12. Following discussion PQSC felt that it would be appropriate to recommend to Education

Committee that the Adelaide veterinary degree be accredited for three years, subject to satisfactory annual monitoring reports with a further visit planned in three years.



Action: Recommend to Education Committee that the Adelaide veterinary degree be accredited for a shorter period, i.e. for 3 years, subject to satisfactory annual monitoring reports, and should receive a further visit in three year’s time.

James Cook University visitation 13. At its last meeting, PQSC recommended that JCU be granted “Accreditation for a shorter period”

for one year, subject to a satisfactory report by the end of 2017. This recommendation was supported by Education Committee at its meeting in February. The University was required by AVBC to submit a plan outlining the steps to correct its minor deficiencies by December 2016, and this plan was presented to the sub-committee for consideration. The sub-committee noted this plan.

14. AVBC has since asked the School to provide an update with its annual report, which is due in May 2017, and which will then be considered by VSAAC at its annual meeting on 10th June. This update will be presented to PQSC in due course.

Responses to annual monitoring report

15. At its December 2016 meeting, PQSC considered the annual monitoring reports from UK

veterinary schools. Where queries were raised about the data, clarification from the schools was sought.

Bristol

16. Bristol had defended its decision not to include a research project for all students as part of the course as it argued that the standards were met by strengthening other areas of the curriculum. PQSC noted with interest that the new IT system for curriculum mapping had not yet been fully implemented and looked forward to seeing the research learning outcomes clearly illustrated within this system.

Cambridge 17. Jerry Davies left the room. PQSC noted the information provided and that the reduction in the

number of equine cases, was due to two members of staff being simultaneously on maternity leave. The sub-committee noted the plan to develop a strategy to increase cases and would encourage the school to ensure that this has some resilience to similar staffing situations occurring in future.

Nottingham 18. Malcolm Cobb left the meeting. PQSC noted the information provided by Nottingham and its

strategy for increasing the number of equine cases and reporting student engagement with poultry cases.

Glasgow



19. PQSC noted the reasons behind Glasgow’s re-stated numbers, which were due to an increase in

use of distributed sites and changes to the way the data was presented..

Period of accreditation following a visit

20. When a university has a successful re-visitation, there is currently no guidance within the accreditation procedures about how long the accreditation period should be, e.g. a further full seven-year period vs the remainder of a 7-year period.

21. To avoid confusion for both committees and schools and reduce the risk of inconsistent decision-making, it was suggested that if a school receives a full revisit across all standards then they should, normally, be granted a new seven year period of accreditation, and that if a school receives a short, focussed revisit then the school should, normally, have accreditation extended for the remainder of its seven year cycle.

22. PQSC considered that, in cases where the re-visit had raised no concerns, it would be helpful to

make this distinction as it would allow for consistency of approach.

Action: Recommend this addition to the procedures to Education Committee

Consultative visits 23. At its last meeting, PQSC suggested that RCVS should consider the introduction of consultative

visits. Other accrediting organisations, such as AVMA, AVBC and EAEVE offer consultative or advisory visits which, to date, RCVS has chosen not to undertake. There have recently been circumstances, such as the visit to St. George’s University, Grenada, where the ability to offer a consultative visit would have been helpful. Also, the CEO and President’s recent visit to India highlighted a further situation where a consultative visit might be appropriate. Care would be needed in managing potential issues of conflict of interest if these types of visits were to go ahead.

24. PQSC supported the concept of consultative visits and felt that they would be beneficial in extending the College’s global reach. However members raised concerns about the possible conflicts of interest and the potential risk of appeals if consultative visits and those leading to an accreditation decision were distinct and unconnected processes.

25. In general, PQSC felt that consultative visits should be linked to the process of accreditation and asked Chris Warman to come back with a revised proposal.

SGU Visitor comments 26. Following the visit to St. George’s University, and in line with new procedures, the visiting team

was approached for feedback about the visitation process. There were some useful and interesting suggestions given about how to improve our procedures.



27. PQSC reviewed and noted the comments with thanks. With these in mind it was felt that the guidance on visitations could be amended to include advice on who should be invited to attend meetings with visiting teams (e.g. smaller groups, key staff, those other than senior team).

Bristol graduate entry veterinary degree 28. Bristol Veterinary School had put forward a business case to the University for a graduate entry

veterinary programme. The Head of School had asked RCVS about the approval process for this programme and advice was sought from PQSC as to what would be appropriate. Bristol’s next accreditation visit will be in 2021, and one option would be to look at this new programme as part of that visit.

29. After discussion, PQSC agreed that it would be appropriate for the visitation team to look specifically at this route at the next visit in 2021, as it would have been in place for a few years by this time, if all goes to plan. Bristol would also be invited to make particular note of progress in its annual monitoring reports during planning and once the route is operational.

Appeals procedure

30. If a veterinary school feels that it has grounds to appeal the formal outcomes of the accreditation process, its only option under current rules would be to appeal to the Privy Council. Part of the requirement for ENQA membership is that the organisation has an appeals procedure in place: an appeal to the Privy Council is a very high hurdle and PQSC was asked to consider a new procedure which would be more in line with the RCVS’ current appeals processes in other areas.

31. Appeals would not be entertained in respect of the individual judgements made by the visiting team and contained within visitation report. An appeal could only be made where it can: demonstrate that the outcome is not based on sound evidence, and/or; that published standards have not been correctly applied and/or; that published processes have not been consistently implemented.

32. PQSC supported the need for an appeals process and felt it unlikely that it would be used

inappropriately. It was suggested that it might be helpful to look at procedures used by similar organisations and to ask about potential pitfalls.

33. PQSC made a number of suggestions for changes of wording, to stress that appeals were about process and not about challenging the judgement of the visitors or committees. The sub-committee felt that the exams appeals committee, potentially with a slight change in terms of reference, would be the best group to address the appeals as it would be able to allocate appropriately experienced members to consider them. The sub-committee also suggested increasing the fee set out within the appeals process, which would be returned should an appeal be upheld.

Action: Make revisions to appeals process and agree with PQSC by email prior to recommending to Education Committee.



Audit and Risk Committee

34. As part of the ENQA application, RCVS needs to implement a process of internal quality assurance of its accreditation procedures. The Standard states that “Agencies should have in place processes for internal quality assurance related to defining, assuring and enhancing the quality and integrity of their activities” and it is proposed that the RCVS Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) will carry out this function.

35. At its last meeting, ARC received draft amendments to its terms of reference, detailing its authority to monitor the quality assurance work undertaken by the College in relation to the accreditation of Veterinary and Veterinary Nurse educational institutions. ARC was also asked to identify trends and themes in the data presented from these activities.

36. ARC indicated that it was happy that RCVS was applying for ENQA accreditation and that it was willing to take on this function as part of its remit, but wished to discuss the implications further at its July meeting, to fully understand the effect of this increased workload on the committee.

37. PQSC was pleased to note this change and suggested that “Quality Assurance” should become part of the title of the ARC. PQSC also pointed out that Lynne Hill was no longer a member of ARC and had been replaced by Neil Smith.

Any other business

38. There was no other business.

Date of next meeting

39. The secretary will circulate a selection of dates for the next meeting, which would need to be held by teleconference before Education Committee to discuss the response to the Surrey visitation report.

Britta Crawford Education Manager March 2017

EC May 17 AI 10e ENQA

EC May AI 10e Unclassified Page 1 / 4

Meeting

Education Committee

Date

3 May 2017

Title

Visitation appeal procedure

Classification

Unclassified

Summary

If a veterinary school feels that it has grounds to appeal the formal outcomes of the accreditation process, its only option under current rules would be to appeal to the Privy Council. Part of the requirement for ENQA membership is that the organisation has an appeals procedure in place: an appeal to the Privy Council is a very high hurdle and thus a new procedure is proposed. The attached policy has been adapted both from EAEVE’s current procedure and existing RCVS appeals processes. If approved by PQSC and Education Committee, this policy will need to be included in the “RCVS Standards and procedures for the accreditation of veterinary degrees” document as an annex.

Decisions required

To approve or amend the proposed RCVS visitation appeal procedure and recommend it to Education Committee.

Attachments

Draft RCVS visitation appeal procedure.

Author

Jordan Nicholls Education Officer 020 7202 0704 [email protected]



DRAFT RCVS Visitation Appeal Procedure

Scope of Appeals

1. This appeals procedure applies where an institution questions the formal outcomes of the accreditation process, where it can:

• demonstrate that the outcome is not based on sound evidence, and/or

• that published standards have not been correctly applied and/or

• that published processes have not been consistently implemented.

2. No appeal will be entertained in respect of the individual judgement(s) made by the visiting team and contained within the visitation report.

Definition of terms

3. In these rules:

- "appeals panel" means a panel of the Committee constituted to hear an appeal; - "College" means the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons; - "Committee" means the Examination Appeals Committee; - "lay person" means a person who is not a veterinary surgeon or a registered veterinary

nurse and has never been entitled to be registered as such; - "registrar" means the registrar of the College; - "the Council" means the Council of the College; - “formal outcome of the accreditation process” means the category of accreditation into

which the institution has been placed and/or the period of accreditation that has been granted

- “published standards” means the standards contained within the version of the “RCVS

standards and procedures for the accreditation of veterinary degrees” that applies to the visit in question

- “published processes” means the processes contained within the version of the “RCVS

standards and procedures for the accreditation of veterinary degrees” that applies to the visit in question

Lodging of an appeal

4. An institution must inform the registrar of its intention to appeal not later than two weeks from receipt of the letter confirming the formal outcome of the accreditation process. The appeal



must then be made in writing by the Dean or Head of School no later than six weeks from receipt of the letter confirming the formal outcome of the accreditation process.

Initial consideration of appeals

5. The first stage of the appeal process will involve a review of the process that had been followed by RCVS in reaching its accreditation decision, together with the argued basis for the appeal, by both PQSC at their next scheduled meeting. The Chair of the relevant visitation team may be asked to participate in the review process. The outcome of this review will be to either accept or dismiss the appeal. If accepted, Education Committee will review its original decision and may decide to amend it. It should be noted that acceptance of the appeal may not necessarily result in a change to the original decision.

6. An appeal will only be dismissed on one or more of the following grounds:

• It relates to the individual judgements made by the visiting team

• It gives insufficient information to enable any judgement to be made

• It is frivolous, vexatious or relates to a minor irregularity in the conduct of the accreditation process

• It is unnecessary because deficiencies in the accreditation process have already been acknowledged and appropriate action taken

7. If the appeal is dismissed on any of the grounds mentioned, the institution may nevertheless elect to have the appeal considered by the Visitation Appeals Panel. The institution must pay a fee of £5000, but this will be refunded if the appeal is upheld.

Composition of the Committee

8. The Committee will be appointed from time to time by or on behalf of the Council. It will include veterinary surgeons, registered veterinary nurses and lay persons. Two members of the Committee will be designated by or on behalf of the Council as its Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

Visitation Appeals Panel

9. The Committee will act through panels when dealing with appeals. An appeals panel will

consist of between three and five members of the Examination Appeals Committee chosen by the Chairman of the Committee and will include one person who is not a member of Council.

10. The panel will select its own Chair. All members must sign a declaration confirming that they have no conflict of interest with the appellant institution and a statement to indicate that they will strictly adhere to the “RCVS standards and procedures for the accreditation of veterinary degrees” as well as the “Policy on managing potential conflicts of interest for visitation team members”.



11. The appellant institution will be provided with copies of any information, apart from legal advice, which is made available to the appeals panel and will be given a reasonable opportunity to comment and make any further representations before the panel considers the appeal.

12. The appellant institution has the right to nominate an observer to attend the meeting of the panel. An observer may respond to questions from the panel; however they will not have voting rights when it comes to decision making. The Chair of the visit team may also be requested to attend the meeting as an observer to assist with any points of clarification.

13. An appeals panel will not include a person who has been involved in the initial assessment of the appeal, had any involvement in the visitation to the appellant institution or has any personal connection with the appellant institution which might bring that person’s independence or impartiality into question.

14. The proceedings of an appeals panel will take place in camera and will remain confidential after the conclusion of the appeal.

15. The appeals panel may:

a. uphold the appeal and direct Education Committee to reconsider its decision

b. uphold the appeal, but confirm that the decision should remain unchanged

c. dismiss the appeal

16. Once the panel has reached a decision, by majority vote, its Chair will inform the registrar of its decision by submitting an adjudicating statement, including its reasoning. The registrar will arrange for the outcomes of the appeal to be communicated to the appellant institution, PQSC and Education Committee.

17. The decision of the panel shall be conclusive for all purposes.

18. Until the end of the appeal process, the visitation report will not be published and the appellant institution holds its current accreditation status.

EC May 17 AI 11 Future Committee profile



Date 3 May 2017

Title Committee profiles and appointment process


Summary At its meeting in October 2016, Education Committee agreed, in principle, proposals for a skills-matrix approach to the appointment of committee members, on the basis that any matrix should be seen as a guide and not a ‘straightjacket’. The approach was subsequently agreed by Council in November 2016. Education Committee agreed the detail of its particular skills matrix at its meeting in February 2017 and subsequently all members completed the matrix individually and returned the results by email.

The outcomes of this exercise are attached at Annex A. Currency ratings were multiplied by experience ratings to give an overall value between 1 and 25 for each area of experience for each committee member. The figure in the 'Overall' column is the average value for the committee. Overall values colour coded red or amber indicate areas where the committee is less experienced as a group. These are:

• Non-veterinary professional • Government • Large animal • Food safety

Decisions required The committee is invited to comment and to consider whether it would wish to augment its membership in any or all of these areas. This feedback can then be passed to the Operational Board and incoming RCVS President for consideration when reviewing committee membership prior to RCVS day in July 2017.

Attachments Annex A: Skills matrix: overall ratings for Education Committee

Author Chris Warman Director of Education 020 7202 0732 [email protected]

EC May 17 AI 11 Annex A

Currency ratings have been multiplied by experience ratings to give an overall value between 1 and 25 for each area of experience for each committee member. The figure in the 'Overall' column is the average value for the committee. Overall values colour coded red or amber indicate areas where the committee is less experienced as a group.

Skills Matrix: Education Committee<March 2017 >

Level of experience/skill/knowledge: 1 =none, 5 = extensive multiplied by Currency: 1 = very out of date, 5 = completely up to date

OVERALL

Column1

Column2

Column3

Column4

Column5

Column6

Skills/Knowledge -

Veterinary Academic 16

Veterinary Practitioner 14

Non-veterinary professional 3

Business 14

Communications 18

Digital 13

Education 18

Ethical 15

Government 6

International 12

Leadership 21

Large Animal 5

Small Animal 18

Food safety 3

Experience of: -

Working as part of a team 24

Critical, analytical and strategic thinking 21

Analysing large bundles of information 17

Thinking independently 22

Understanding complex issues, thinking through solutions and providing appropriate guidance 22

Engaging with debate, listening to perspectives and ideas that are different from your own and seeking appropriate compromise 22

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

EC May 17 AI 12a AP


Date 3 May 2017

Title RCVS Advanced Practitioner status


Summary

List of Advanced Practitioners approved by the panel in March 2017

Decisions required To note

Attachments

None

Author Laura Hogg Education Officer 020 7202 0736 [email protected]



List of Advanced Practitioners approved in March:

Designation Name Qualification Bovine Reproduction Julie MacFarlane DBR Philippa Mahen DBR Edward Hayes DBR Tonia Simms DBR Michael Woodhouse DBR John Walsh DBR Amy Fitzsimons DBR Owain Jenkins DBR Michael Kerby DBR Companion Animal Behaviour Emma Hatton Dip Caroline Warnes Dip Hannah Donovan MSc Emergency and Critical Care Helen Nelson CertAVP(ECC) David Mackenzie CertAVP(ECC) Equine Dentistry Amy Reynolds CertAVP(ED) Equine Practice Charlotte Thomas CertEP Beth Robinson CertAVP(EP) Kleopatra Triantafyllou CertAVP(EP) Nicola Brooks CertAVP(EP) Hannah Blackburn CertAVP(EP) General Small Animal Surgery Lucy Osborne CertAVP(GSAS) Prudence Harvey CertAVP(GSAS) Shula Waining CertAVP(GSAS) Small Animal Cardiology Maria Giannitrapani Harper Adams PgC Katharyn James Harper Adams PgC Small Animal Medicine Mark Neall CertAVP(SAM) Mirela Ginea Harper Adams PgC Jennifer Long Harper Adams PgC Alice McNamara BSAVA PGCert SAM Rebecca Lee BSAVA PGCert SAM Benjamin Safrany Harper Adams PgC Emily Hellewell MANZCVS(Small Animal

Medicine) Caroline Ficker CertSAM Sarah Thomson Harper Adams PgC Thomas Fitzsimons Harper Adams PgC Alison Thomas CertSAM Small Animal Medicine - Feline Catherine Ballard MANZCVS(Medicine of Cats) Yaiza Gomez Mejias MANZCVS(Medicine of Cats) Amy Bergs MANZCVS(Medicine of Cats) Mary Farell MANZCVS(Medicine of Cats)


Ildiko Plaganyi MANZCVS(Medicine of Cats) Small Animal Orthopaedics Martin Harris CertSAO Small Animal Surgery Thomas Bury Harper Adams PgC Monika Kurczych Harper Adams PgC James Bennett BSAVA PGCert SAS Leanne Hall Harper Adams PgC Jon Berg Harper Adams PgC Laura Colyer CertSAS Martin Fitzpatrick Harper Adams PgC Veterinary Anaesthesia William McFadzean CertAVP(VA) Veterinary Cardiology Rachel Marsden CertVC Sheena Milne CertVC Veterinary Dentistry Gerhard Putter MANZCVS Martin Brice PGCert Veterinary Dermatology Sanjaya Kanagasundaram CertVD Wesley Power CertVD Veterinary Diagnostic Imaging Joanne Weaver CertVR Nihal Kay CertVDI Veterinary Ophthalmology Mark Russon Harper Adams PgC Zoological Medicine Christopher Lloyd CertZooMed Sergio Silvetti CertAVP(ZM) Thomas Dutton CertAVP(ZM) Karen Archer CertAVP(ZM) Beverley Panto CertAVP(ZM)

EC May 17 AI 12b


Date 3 May 2017

Title Advanced Practitioner status – acceptance of a combination approach to qualification eligibility


Summary Education Committee is asked to reconsider the acceptance of a ‘combination’ approach for Advanced Practitioner applications in areas for which there is not currently an existing eligible qualification as a single unit.

Decisions required To consider allowing a ‘combination’ approach for applications in the areas of Veterinary Pain Management and Veterinary Oncology.

Attachments Annex 1: Minutes from previous Education Committee meetings

Author Laura Hogg

Education Officer 0207 202 0736

[email protected]



Introduction

1. Education Committee has had previous discussions on whether to allow a ‘bolt-on’ approach, or in other words a combination of courses and modules as a route to Advanced Practitioner status, and had decided not to allow these routes (see minutes of meeting on 8 October 2014). However, RCVS has received further requests to look at this in two areas - Veterinary Pain Management and Veterinary Oncology - in which there is not currently an existing eligible qualification that would give access to the status. Education Committee is consequently invited to return to the issue and consider whether or not it wishes to confirm its previous decision.

Veterinary Pain Management

2. RCVS has been approached again by a veterinary surgeon who has a Masters’ degree in Clinical Management of Pain with University of Edinburgh. The original application in 2014 was rejected by the panel as the veterinary focus of the qualification was unclear. The applicant has since furthered their studies in this area by creating a module (‘Veterinary Musculoskeletal Pain: Small Animals’) for this same masters degree. He also acted as tutor and presented the module as one of the elective modules when it ran in 2016.

3. The Masters’, in combination with this new module, has been re-assessed and approved by two panel members as meeting the clinical requirements for Advanced Practitioner status; a further two panel members have assessed the application documents and gave their approval to the application.

4. The Chair of the AP panel has also reviewed the case and approved the application in principle, pending a decision by Education Committee on allowing the overall approach. It should be noted that any further applicants with this qualification would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Veterinary Oncology

5. RCVS has received a further request for approval of a route to a designation in Veterinary Oncology. The applicant has asked if, in addition to his Masters’ degree from University of Birmingham, he was to complete Massey University’s module in ‘Canine and Feline Oncology’ this would be sufficient to allow him to apply for AP status in the area of Veterinary Oncology. The module and his Masters’ have been looked at by 3 panel members in this field and they have all agreed that this would be acceptable and would cover the clinical requirement. Also, should the Committee agree to this approach, the applicant will be advised that Oncology modules for the CertAVP are in development should he wish to take these instead.


Summary

6. Education Committee has already approved Advanced Practitioner designations in both of these areas. The number of candidates likely to apply with combinations of qualifications and modules seems likely to be small, such that considering them on a case-by-case basis would not be onerous. For Veterinary Oncology, a route via CertAVP is in development, which will fill a gap in this increasingly important area. Education Committee is invited to consider the acceptance of a ‘combined’ approach to qualification eligibility for Advanced Practitioner status, for these designations and on a case-by-case basis in these two areas. In the future, should applications for other approved designations that did not have an existing eligible qualification available be made these would be brought back to Education committee so that a ‘bolt-on’ approach is not established as an ‘approved route’ to Advanced Practitioner status.


Annex 1 Minutes from 8 October 2014 meeting: As Chair of the Advanced Practitioner panel, Dr Kit Sturgess asked the Committee to consider whether a ‘bolt-on’ approach of combined courses and or modules could be used as a route to the status in areas where there was not currently an existing eligible qualification. The question had arisen specifically in the area of veterinary oncology, where no middle tier veterinary qualification existed. However, some vets hold a masters degree based around human oncology but this would not be a suitable route to Advanced Practitioner status without additional veterinary practical components. It was ultimately decided not to allow such routes and to instead look into the possibility of offering oncology modules as part of the RCVS CertAVP. Minutes from 4 February 2015 meeting: Education Committee also approved the addition of four new designations, subject to the approval of the associated qualifications and applications for Advanced Practitioner status:

1. Small Animal Dentistry 2. Animal Behaviour 3. Veterinary Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine 4. Veterinary Pain Management.

Minutes from 4 May 2016 meeting: Advanced Practitioner (AP) status: Oncology Designation 25. Members were asked to consider approval of a designation in Veterinary Oncology as an application had been received for listing as an Advanced Practitioner in oncology. The applicant had applied with a masters’ degree from University of Birmingham, which was primarily based in human medicine, which Education Committee had previously discussed in October 2014. 26. The committee voiced concerns on allowing the qualification as a route to AP status due to the human content of the degree. However, evidence had been submitted with appropriate support from the University of Birmingham, confirming that the veterinary surgeon had passed 60 credits at level 7 by undertaking a dissertation that was directly related to veterinary clinical matters.


27. Following further discussion, Education Committee agreed to approve a new designation in Veterinary Oncology in principle, and that the application for listing should be assessed by oncology representatives. However, if the application were to be turned down for any reason, the designation of Veterinary Oncology would not be added to the list of designations. If the current application was approved, any further applicants with the same qualification would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. They would also need to provide evidence that they had undertaken and been assessed for at least 40 credits of veterinary-related clinical content as well as being subject to fulfilling the general criteria for AP status. 28. The current lack of appropriate veterinary oncology qualifications at certificate level was also discussed. Professor Argyle agreed that he would consult with other oncologists and representative bodies on the possibility of creating new CertAVP modules so that there could be a CertAVP in Veterinary Oncology.

EC May 17 AI 13

EC May 17 AI 13 Unclassified Page 1 / 1


Date 3 May 2017

Title Specialists – additional designations


Summary The Specialist Sub-Committee wish to propose two additional Specialist designations in:

i. Radiation Oncology

ii. Equine Sports Medicine

There are currently two applications that are pending approval.

If approved, Equine Sports Medicine would become a speciality in its own right and would replace the current sub-speciality of Equine Medicine (Sports Medicine).

Decisions required To approve designations

Attachments None

Author Duncan Ash

Senior Education Officer 0207 202 0703 [email protected]


EC May 17 AI 14b Fellowship appeals


Date 3 May 2017

Title Fellowship Appeals procedure


Summary At its meeting in November, Council agreed the rules for the Fellowship. However, there was some discussion about the lack of an Appeals process in the new scheme. This option had previously been discussed by the Fellowship Board which had felt that appeals were not necessary, partly due to the nature of the Fellowship, which does not confer or limit any right to practice, and partly because the application process allows multiple re-applications. Council agreed that the Fellowship Board should be asked to give further consideration to whether or not an appeals process should be introduced and report to Council at its next meeting.

The Fellowship Board met and discussed the issue on 27 January 2017 and agreed that it would be helpful to introduce an appeals procedure, providing that the grounds for appeal were focused on the process of application and not on the decision to accept or decline an application. This would be in line with other RCVS appeals procedures, for example the current examination appeals rules. A draft procedure has been drafted and is provided at Annex A. This is adapted from the current Examinations Appeals process. It has been checked by the Registrar and has the support of the Fellowship Board.

Decisions required Education Committee is invited to approve the appeals procedure for the Fellowship and recommend its adoption by Council.

Attachments Annex A: Draft Fellowship Appeals procedure

Author Chris Warman

Director of Education

[email protected]

020 7202 0732


EC May 17 AI 14b Unclassified 2

Annex A The Fellowship Appeals Rules Made by the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on XXX Citation 1. These rules may be cited as the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Fellowship

Appeals Rules. Application 2. These rules apply to appeals against the processes for the consideration of applications for

the award of Fellowship of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. This means the processes set out in the Fellowship Information Pack or Guidance Notes.

Lodging of an appeal 3. An appeal must be received by the registrar not later than 28 days after the appellant is

notified of the outcome of their application for Fellowship and must set out the grounds of the appeal.

Scope of Appeals 4. Appeals will only be entertained if they relate to processes for the consideration of

applications for the award of Fellowship of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. No appeal will be entertained in respect of any assessment or judgment made by the Fellowship Credentials Panels and/or the Fellowship Board.

Composition of the Committee 5. The Committee will be appointed from time to time by or on behalf of the Council. It will

include veterinary surgeons, registered veterinary nurses and lay persons. Two members of the Committee will be designated by or on behalf of the Council as its Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

Initial consideration of appeals 6. On receipt of an appeal the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Committee will consider it,

together with the assessment of the application, any contemporaneous comments of the Credentials Panel or Fellowship Board and any guidance notes which were made available to candidates or Credentials Panel or Fellowship Board, and either dismiss the appeal or refer it to the Committee for determination. Before deciding whether to dismiss the


appeal or refer it to the Committee the Chairman or Vice-Chairman may consult no more than two other members of the Committee.

7. The Chairman or Vice-Chairman will only dismiss an appeal on one or more of the

following grounds:

- it relates to the assessment or judgment made by the Fellowship Credentials Panels and/or the Fellowship Board;

- it gives insufficient information to enable any judgment to be made; - it is frivolous, vexatious or relates to a minor irregularity in the operation of the

application and assessment process; - it is not necessary for the Committee to determine the appeal because deficiencies

in the assessment process have been acknowledged and remedial action taken. 8. If the Chairman or Vice-Chairman dismisses an appeal for want of sufficient information

to enable any judgment to be made, the appellant may renew the appeal by sending to the registrar further information as directed by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman. The renewed appeal will then be treated as a new appeal, even if the 28 day period for lodging an appeal has passed; but if the new appeal is again dismissed for want of sufficient information, the dismissal will be final.

9. If the Chairman or Vice-Chairman dismisses an appeal on any of the grounds mentioned,

the appellant may nevertheless elect to have the appeal considered by the Committee. An appellant who so elects must pay a fee of £100, but this will be refunded if the appeal is upheld.

Appeals panels 10. The Committee will act through panels when dealing with appeals. An appeals panel will

consist of between three and five members of the Committee chosen by the Chairman of the Committee and will include one person who is not a member of the Council. Each panel will include and be chaired by either the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Committee.

11. An appeals panel will not include a person who has been involved in the initial assessment

of the appeal, had any involvement in the assessment to which the appeal relates or has any personal connection with the appellant which might bring that person's independence or impartiality into question.

Procedure for consideration by appeals panel


12. The appellant will be provided with copies of any information, apart from legal advice, which is made available to the appeals panel and will be given a reasonable opportunity to comment and make any further representations before the panel considers the appeal.

13. The proceedings of an appeals panel will take place in camera and will remain

confidential after the conclusion of the appeal. The meeting shall normally be held within two months of the dispatch to the appellant of the notification that an application has been turned down.

14. The Committee acting through an appeals panel will reach a decision by majority vote and

give the appellant reasons for its decision. Disposal of appeals following consideration by appeals panel 15. The Committee acting through an appeals panel may:-

(a) dismiss the appeal (b) direct the Fellowship Board to reconsider the application

16. The decision of the Committee will be conclusive for all purposes.

EC May 17 AI 17


Date Wednesday 3 May 2017

Title Diploma Exams Update


Summary

The attached summary shows the number of Diploma candidates currently enrolled; and numbers entered for the 2017 round of examinations.

Decisions required None, to note

Attachments

None

Author Duncan Ash, Education Officer

[email protected]


EC May 17 AI 17 Unclassified Page 2 / 2

Summary of activities on Diplomas 2017 Enrolment figures 1. There are currently 51 candidates remaining in the system of whom 21 are eligible to enter

an examination. 2. Examinations will be held up until the last candidate exits the system in 2019. Entries to examinations as at 1 March 2017 4. 8 candidates have entered for Diploma examinations in 2017, compared with 11 in 2016. 5. Entries were received for the Diplomas in: Equine Orthopaedics; Small Animal Surgery

(Orthopaedics); Veterinary Cardiology; Zoological Medicine (Mammalian). 6. At the time of writing, 6 candidates will be going forward to sit the written examinations

after passing section (a); and 2 candidates have been requested to make changes to their submitted work before proceeding..

7. The written examinations will be held on Wednesday 5 July 2017. 8. The Examinations Review Group will review draft examination papers and key points

during April and May.

education committee agenda for the meeting to be held · pdf fileeducation committee . agenda...

Documents