UKAPD: The United Kingdom Association of Programme Directors
|
UKAPD: The United Kingdom Association of Programme Directors
|
|
|
ASSOCIATION OF COURSE ORGANISERS EXECUTIVE MEETING : FRIDAY 23 NOVEMBER 2007 RCGP, LONDON PRESENT
APOLOGIES
The Chairman thanked those present for attending and welcomed everyone to the meeting. A particular welcome was extended to Fergus Donaghy who was attending his first meeting as the representative for Northern Ireland. Congratulations were extended to his predecessor Anne Little who had taken up an Associate Director post. 1. Minutes of Exec Meeting - held at Cumberland Lodge, Windsor were accepted 2. Minutes of AGM held at Cumberland Lodge, Windsor were accepted. 3. Matters arising (a) The Chairman had written to Shake Seigel to thank him for working on the ACO mission statement which had been publicised on the web site. (b) Education for Primary Care (the green journal) Allyson reported that Andrew Bax had recently contacted the ACO re increasing the cost of the journal to £55 per member from January 2008 and would this be acceptable to the ACO. It was not clear whether this increase was to fund the bi-monthly publication of the journal from 2008. It was reported that trainers were also able to subscribe to the green journal for £55 per person, without being members of the ACO. It was felt that this could be counter-productive to encouraging membership of the ACO. It was felt that even with the price increase, the green journal was good value for money. It was agreed to accept the increase, with condition that the ACO be provided with more detail, ie was this to fund bi-monthly publication. The ACO also requested more frequent special price book offers for members. There was discussion concerning the merits of the membership also being offered the Red journal, but it was felt this was more suited to undergraduate training and was cost-prohibitive. (d) NAPCE Newsletter Discussed later in the meeting. (e) Recruitment Concern was expressed at the ration of applicants to posts 3 : 1 and how this would effect morale amongst junior doctors applying for training posts. It was recommended that deanery reps should try to collate data on figures from the next recruitment round in Spring 08. 4. Deanery Reports The reports (attached to the minutes) had been circulated prior to the meeting and seemed to follow similar themes. Brad reported that in the Northern Deanery the Training Programme Directors had been given responsibility for Quality Assuring all aspects of their own Schemes, from trainer visits to the half day release, and the Scheme admin. Members expressed some concerns at this devolvement of responsibility from the deanery and it appeared that other deaneries were not following this path and had no apparent intention of introducing this. The Chair asked how many present were also trainers – 10. There was discussion concerning the PMETB visits and it was reported that these visits were now to take the form of ‘triggered visits’. There was concern expressed at the current situation where everything seemed to be unclear eg. huge differences between deaneries with the e-portfolio; 18 months or 20 months of general practice, how the deaneries were funding increased time in training. It was suggested that College Assessors for ARCP panels should be included in the programme for the ACO Conference, particularly when at that time there would be more information in the public domain. It was stated that it would be useful to have a list of who is an assessor for each deanery. Mike Tomson raised a concern regarding part time trainees and the confusion concerning the requirement for them to complete their assessments. It was suggested that this should be clarified with the RCGP and the suggestion made that part time trainees training years should be calculated on the basis of whole time equivalents. It seemed unfair that the part timers could be required to complete more assessments, than a full time trainee. It was agreed to write to the Jane Mamelock and Bill Reith at the RCGP with this concern and request clarification for all deaneries. 5. Correspondence § Paddy McEvoy’s email re new handbook – discussed later § Tooke Report - was discussed and it was felt that although the deadline had only recently past that the ACO should write with comment following this meeting. It was agreed that David Taylor would respond on behalf of the ACO, with assistance from Robin Simpson. Shake Seigel had kindly sent an email copy of his comments on the Tooke Report to the ACO. There was some discussion concerning the recommendation of 5 years training in the Tooke report. Concern was expressed that this could be used as a reason for charging training practices for having trainees placed with them, and it was also felt that 5 years would be of benefit to some trainees, but not others, dependent on ability. It was recognised that 3 years might not be sufficient time to consolidate the learning into becoming a GP, and that the extra two years would allow more ‘on the job’ experience to develop. § Two new RCGP committees : Assessment Committee and the Quality Standards Committee. The Chair reported that Mei Ling Denney had agreed to represent the ACO on the Assessment Committee and that he had temporarily taken up the Quality Standards Committee. Roger asked for alternative volunteers to act as lead for the Quality Standards Committee and stated that he was willing to act as a ‘reserve’ and asked for a ‘reserve’ to support Mei Ling. There would be 4 meetings per year of each committee, held at the RCGP in London. It was reported that the National Association of Clinical Tutors were also represented on the Assessment Committee. Robin Simpson agreed to take up the Quality Standards representation and Mike Tomson agreed to act as deputy on the Assessment Committee. It was agreed that the ACO would write to the College requesting representation on the Curriculum Committee and a nomination to represent the ACO on this group would be required. § ACO deanery representation : it was reported that those deaneries not represented on the ACO had again been written to to request nominations, but again nothing had been forthcoming. The Chair reported that he had phoned the directors of those deaneries, but again without result. It was reported that communication with Scotland Associate Directors had been reinstated and it was hoped that at least 4 Scottish representatives would be attending the Conference in 2008. § It was reported that there was another joint meeting of UKCEA\NAPCE\ACO planned for 11 December at 1 pm in the RCGP. This being the same date of the UKCEA meeting. Roger gave his apologies that he would not be able to attend either meeting and asked for nominations to attend. Mike Tomson circulated a brief outline of the advantages so far of collaborative working with NAPCE and UKCEA – attached to the minutes. Reference was made to the minutes of the joint meeting in September (previously circulated). It was felt that the joint working arrangements of the 3 groups would be beneficial. The NAPCE newsletter had been circulated by email to all ACO members and discussion arose concerning future collaboration with NAPCE on the newsletter and the costs (£4,000) involved. It was agreed that email was the more cost effective method of distribution of the newsletter to members. There followed discussion concerning the merits of use of the ACO web site to facilitate networking of the different organisations. NAPCE’s web site was currently password protected for members only and Brad Cheek reminded the Exec that the ACO had taken a conscious decision to allow free access to all parts of the ACO site for members and non-members. It was felt that discussions concerning use of a web portal for the 3 organisations would be beneficial and should be raised at the next meeting. It was agreed that Mike Tomson would liaise with NAPCE on this at their next meeting. 6. Chairman’s Report The Chaiman thanked Allyson for attending, in view of the situation re the search for new premises for the Scheme and hence the ACO. a) Constitution David Taylor referred to the constitution that the Secretary is normally the ‘mouthpiece’ of the ACO and the implications of this were discussed. It was agreed that the current situation whereby the Secretary consulted with other Exec members according to the issues raised was acceptable and should continue. Richard Brook referred to the financial statement of the Constitution which did not refer to the need to take the accounts to the AGM, which had been the case for several years. Following discussion it was agreed that the accounts should be circulated and approved by the AGM and that this clause was also acceptable in its present format. Reference was made to the need for the ACO to occasionally form sub-groups and again it was felt that the current constitution allowed for this in order to represent the views of members. b) New Edition of the Course Organiser Handbook Roger referred to an email received from Paddy McEvoy, in which Paddy offered to help with the production of a new edition of the handbook. This offer had been gratefully received and circulated to the Exec. There was a consensus that the handbook should be produced in a loose leaf format to allow ease of updating and to allow it to be included at some stage on the ACO web site. It was agreed that the handbook should be produced by several contributors, each producing a chapter and oversee by an editor. Roger stated that he had had discussions with Ramesh Mehay on this subject and Ramesh had expressed an interest in the editorship. Several other members had also expressed an interest in contributing to the handbook, with Paddy writing the introduction. Several Exec members also volunteered support and assistance. The next decision would depend on funding for the book. It was agreed that the Treasurer and others would discuss the funding options and the costs involved for the 2nd edition. Estimates of figures were discussed with an expectation of around £8,000. It was suggested that Ram be asked to write a proposal, including costings and submit this to the Exec. There was some discussion about the involvement of NAPCE and other contributors to the book and potentially the title. Dave Rapley suggested something along the lines of the 7 ages of general practice as a background to the handbook, ie from first experiences of general practice, including continuing education. It was agreed that the book should focus on Vocational Training for General Practice and be a handbook for postgraduate medical educationalists. c) Tooke Report Roger asked for comments relating to the Tooke Report so that these could be incorporated into the response from the ACO. Discussion centred around the difficulty of relating comments to the report and concerns emerged regarding the problems of ratios of applicants per post; developing a model for higher professional education etc. Robin Simpson agreed to support David Taylor in producing a response to the report. d) ACO approach to COGPED Roger reported that he had recently met with Malcolm Lewis, Director PG GP Education for Wales, who was taking the Chair of COGPED from March 2008. Roger had put to Malcolm that more support was needed from COGPED to allow deaneries to support the ACO in representing the views of the Programme Directors\Course Organisers nationally. Malcolm was very supportive of the aims of the ACO and agreed that it was in the best interests of COGPED and the deaneries to support the ACO nationally and ensure both equality of representation and funding to allow Programme Directors to be members of the ACO and to allow funds for a ratio of attendance at the ACO Conference. The meeting had been very positive. Roger said he was aware that if the ACO wanted to be more involved and increase their profile, then revenue would be vital and the only way of increasing revenue, was by increasing membership through support of COGPED. Malcolm had also said he would be willing to attend the Conference and\or AGM in 2008 to listen to feedback from the membership and to offer his support. Roger said he intended to write formally thanking Malcolm for his time and also confirming the issues discussed. The Exec were delighted at this move forward and thanked the Chair for being proactive in arranging to meet with Malcolm. In relation to payments to trainers for educational supervision, the letter sent to the current Chair of COGPED, Arthur Hibble had been less successful. Arrangements for payments were being left to individual deaneries and as such this was not a level playing field for all. e) Appointment of Vice Chairman There was some discussion as to whether there should be a Vice Chairman for the ACO. Roger felt this would be very useful in supporting the Chairman. It was agreed that Mike Tomson would take on this role on a temporary basis until the Executive\AGM in June and in the meantime the Executive and membership would be canvassed for nominations. 7. Secretary’s Report David reported that he had written to South West Peninsula Deanery expressing the ACO’s concern at the procedures implemented to re-appoint Course Organisers for the deanery, which had resulted in several colleagues being unsuccessfully re-interviewed for their own posts. This had resulted in several redundancies. A response had been received from Julia Oxenbury, the Deanery director giving the view that due process had been followed. The Executive were disappointed with the outcome and the situation. 8. Treasurer’s Report Richard Brook referred to the account statements circulated with the minutes and the accounts presented to the AGM in June. He estimated a further drop in balances available to the ACO, caused by a drop in membership and a further increase in the cost of the green journal. Although the balances were healthy, Richard put forward that the ACO would need to maintain sufficient balances to cater for example, for the cancellation of the annual conference, the production of the new handbook, the payment of £4,000 to NAPCE for future newsletters, an increase in office costs caused by the imminent move, and an increase in expenses for representatives attending meetings. He therefore recommended that an increase in fees be taken to the AGM in June 08 with an implementation date of January 2009. There was some discussion concerning what the increase should be and how long it had been since the last increase (2004). Richard pointed out that there was some risk to the organisation in increasing subscriptions, as new standing order mandates would need to be issued and this may result in members not renewing subscriptions. It was agreed that the recommended increase should be an annual subscription of £95 per member from January 2009. This would also allow time for the admin office to be re-located and for the possibility of a switch of bank to be explored. There was some discussion concerning the possible £4,000 payment to NAPCE for future newsletters and it was agreed that Mike Tomson would discuss this further with NAPCE with a view to the shared use of the web sites. Richard also pointed out that as NAPCE had cancelled their annual conference this year, the ACO needed to ensure that their accounts could sustain a similar occurrence if needed. Richard reminded the Exec that his term as Treasurer was up at the AGM and that a new nomination would need to be sought. The Chair asked for nominations and it was agreed that nominations would be sought prior to the AGM. Richard also referred to the new rates for reimbursement of locum costs which had been circulated to members. These were the same as those adopted by the RCGP for meetings. New claim forms would be circulated to members by email. The Chair asked members firstly to try to reclaim costs from their deaneries or the organisation holding the meeting, eg the RCGP, before submitting claims to the ACO. The Chair thanked Richard for his report. 9. Admin Report Allyson explained that the Tees Valley Scheme was looking for a new base, being evicted from its current premises by 31 March. There would likely to be some additional cost implications of the move for the ACO in terms of charges for copying, postage and internet access. Allyson further reported that she was looking into the use of a PO Box for mail to avoid problems over bookings for the Conference in 2008. 10. Committee Reports a) RCGP Exam Board Roger referred to his report circulated with the Agenda and Minutes. There was some discussion concerning the introduction of preparation courses for the nMRCGP. The RCGP had said that they would approve courses and that the RCGP package to run courses would be provided free to Faculties but other organisations would incur a charge for approval. Concerns were expressed regarding the delay in rolling out these courses. It was reported that nMRCGP had been copyrighted by the College. Concerns were also expressed re the timing of sittings of the exam in relation to allowing submissions to PMETB for CCTs from trainees. b) UKCEA It was reported that Carmen Munteanu had resigned from the Executive for family reasons and that a new representative was needed for the UKCEA. Prit Chahal agreed to take this on – with thanks from the Chairman. The next meeting of the UKCEA was due to be held on 4-6 June in Cambridge (at the same time and close to the ACO Conference). There had been suggestions that a joint session could be organised, but timetabling of both events seemed to preclude this. It was reported that UKCEA was funded by COGPED and supported administratively by the RCGP. Mike Tomson agreed to report back following the next liaison meeting on 11 December. 11. Conference 2008 Mei Ling and Richard Wakeford reported on the theme of the Conference – the good shepherd – and activities planned for Conference 2008 which was to be held at Madingley Hall, Cambridge, from 4 – 6 June. There was some discussion concerning the level of cost and it was agreed that the fee would be £435 per person, with a reduction for day delegates. David Haslam, was to be keynote speaker, and it was agreed to extended an invitation to Malcolm Lewis as Chair of COGPED to attend the AGM. 12. Conference 2009 Allyson reported that the Northern Deanery had identified several locations for the Conference including a local castle. It was agreed by the Executive that the Castle sounded ideal. Dates would be confirmed but were planned to be the Wednesday – Friday immediately before the Whitsun Bank Holiday, ie the end of May 2009. 13. Conference 2010It was suggested that during 2010 a joint NAPCE\UKCEA Conference would be organised and therefore a fairly large and central venue would be sought to host the event. Further detail would be brought to the Executive meeting in the summer, following further consultations with NAPCE and UKCEA. 14. Any Other Business a) E-Portfolio There was detailed discussion centred around the shortcomings of the e-portfolio and the possibility of an electronic link to the tool kit on the RCGP web site. Various concerns were raised and the Chairman asked for comment by email to him\Mike Tomson to forward to the RCGP. Some concerns related to getting feedback from hospital posts on trainees assessments\progress and it was recommended that some time be allocated to discussion of e-portfolio at the Conference in 2008. It was reported that a bug-fix and update to the e-portfolio was taking place on Monday 26 November and it would be interesting to see what benefits this would bring to its users. b) Pay structure for Programme Directors\course Organisers It was reported that GP Educators should be paid on University lecture scales as opposed to what had been agreed in the last round of pay negotiations, where GP educators were paid in accordance with the consultant pay scale on an incremental ladder. It was felt by all present that salary levels should be future proofed. 15. Date of time of next meeting Wednesday 4 June, 10 am and Friday 6 June 1.30 pm, at Madingley Hall, Cambridge The Chairman closed the meeting at 3 pm. |
|
|
