annual postgraduate school annual progress report

Annual Postgraduate School Annual Progress Report

Version 2

Postgraduate School: Medicine – North & East Yorkshire and West YorkshireDate: 23 July 2008Report compiled by: Dr Anthony Arnold

Guidance for Completion This report is based on the currently agreed and published NACT report. This report refers to all doctors in training posts, from F1 to Post CCT It addresses the QAFP/PMETB’s Generic Standards for Training All questions need to be met with a “Yes” response. Exceptions should be outlined if a “no” response is given. Documentation should be retained at departmental/School level as evidence in support of the statements made and should be easily

accessible as and when requested

Completion Date and Reporting The completed report should be submitted electronically to [email protected] by the 25th July 2008. Underpinning evidence should not be submitted, with this report, as the Deanery will request a sample of evidence following their review

of the report

Section 1 – Trust DetailsPostgraduate School Team Name and Contact Details Head of School Dr Anthony Arnold – [email protected] or

[email protected] Manager (where applicable) Miss Julie Honsberger – [email protected]

School Administrator Miss Jane Burnett – [email protected]

Programme Director (include specialty and add additional lines where necessary)

Dr Phillip Batin – Cardiology – [email protected] Chris Bennett – Clinical Genetics – [email protected] Mike Blackburn – Paediatric Cardiology – [email protected]

“*” Indicates work in progress of 18

mailto:[email protected]







Dr Jon Cooper – Stroke Medicine – [email protected] Cath Coyle – Clinical Oncology – [email protected] M Dakkak – Gastroenterology – mounes.dakkak@hey,nhs,ukDr S Gilbey – Diabetes and Endocrinology – [email protected] Jimmy Gooi – Immunology – [email protected] Andrew Gough – Rheumatology – [email protected] Victoria Goulden – Dermatology – [email protected] Annika Graham – Respiratory Medicine – [email protected] Peter Hammond – GIM – [email protected] David Heseltine – Elderly Medicine – [email protected] Stuart Jamieson - Neurology – [email protected] Ruth Kent – Rehabilitation Medicine – [email protected] Andrew Mooney – Nephrology – [email protected] Nick Scriven – Acute Medicine – [email protected] John Shepherd – Occupational Medicine – [email protected] Philip Stanley – Infectious Diseases – [email protected] Dan Stark – Medical Oncology – [email protected] Mike Stockton – Palliative Medicine – [email protected] Ann Tweddel – Cardiology (East) – [email protected] Janet Wilson – G.U.M. – [email protected] David Wright – Haematology – [email protected] David Eadington – CMT East – [email protected] Liz Berkin – CMT West – [email protected]

Key Lead EducatorsEducational Roles Name PAs in Job PlanLocal TPD – Airedale Dr Andrew Pettit YesLocal TPD – Bradford Dr Badie Jacob YesLocal TPD - Dewsbury Dr Hanosage Chidambara * Awaiting information






















mailto:mounes.dakkak@hey,nhs,uk



Local TPD and Education Sub-committee member - Calderdale

Dr Karen Goodman * Awaiting information

Local TPD - Harrogate Dr Umesh Sharan YesLocal TPD – Huddersfield Dr Asis Kumar YesLocal TPD – Pinderfields Dr Frank Phelan YesLocal TPD – Pontefract Dr Graham Smith * Awaiting informationLocal TPD – SJUH Dr Nicole Turner YesLocal TPD - LGI Dr Robert Murray * Awaiting informationLocal TPD and Education Sub-committee member - LGI Dr Jon Cooper YesLocal TPD – Castle Hill Dr Richard Teoh YesLocal TPD – Hull RI Dr Mo Aye * Awaiting informationLocal TPD – Grimsby Dr Luxy John * Awaiting informationLocal TPD – Scunthorpe Dr Mohammed Malik * Awaiting informationLocal TPD – Scarborough Dr Tim Houghton * Awaiting informationLocal TPD - York Dr Colin Jones * Awaiting informationEducation Sub-committee member Dr Peter Belfield NoEducation Sub-committee member Dr Liz Berkin NoEducation Sub-committee member Dr Catherine Dickinson NoEducation Sub-committee member Dr Mounes Dakkak No

Please see attached for list of Educational Supervisors

Section 2 – Executive Summary

Your Internal QC ProceduresWhat is your QC Management structure (for example QC Committees, named contacts, accountabilities)?What are your procedures for collecting and reviewing information and ensuring the quality of your posts/programmes against the standards set out by PMETB and your locality office?

The Yorkshire School of Postgraduate Medicine has appointed a Quality Control Sub-Committee (Chairman – Dr Greg Reynolds, Dr Mike Stockton and Dr Phil Batin), which reports to the School Management Committee. It has produced an ‘Educational Quality


Framework’ that is mapped to the nine key areas defined in the PMETB document entitled ‘Generic Standards for Training’, and these are both linked to the School website.

The sub-committee is finalising details of the data set that is to be maintained by the Training Programme Directors (TPDs), much of which needs to be collated in a prospective fashion (eg exam outcomes, consultant appointments), and which should therefore be fully available for the next round of annual TPD and School reports. With regard to visits to training locations (both routine and ‘triggered’), an agreed Deanery policy is awaited. With regard to questionnaire data, the recently completed spreadsheet of all trainees and trainers will facilitate communication with and encouragement of all parties, in an attempt to increase the response rate to the next PMETB survey. In addition, the School is convinced that an important tool to obtain more specific locality feedback is the trainee placement questionnaire, this data providing triangulation with the data derived from the PMETB survey and the RITA/ARCP process. It would like to extend the Deanery questionnaire that we trialled for CMT to all medical specialties, to make the process mandatory and to build-up profiles of each training location over a period of time – this has recently been actioned.

The delay in appointing administrative support for the School, and the short time-line available for this year, has restricted the available data. However, this is expected to be fully available in future years.

Summary of PMETB National Trainer and Trainee Surveys1. Please summarise your Specialty/ies key strengths and development needs identified from the PMETB National Survey

Summary of Surveys

The response rate to the PMETB trainer survey was very low, and the survey gives little insight into the particular problems of our medical specialties and training locations. With the recent appointment of identifiable administrative support for the School we have prepared a spreadsheet of all trainers, and propose to contact them directly, to establish (amongst a range of issues) their training status and needs.

a) Key Strengths

The PMETB data analysis by programme (see Appendix A), and by training location (see Appendix B) indicates satisfactory results in most instances – more than might be anticipated on statistical grounds alone. Strengths have been demonstrated


in several Specialties, as shown in green (Appendix A), but not in particular training locations. Some insight into locality strengths emerged from the Deanery Placement Questionnaire (Appendix C). Qualitative data pertaining to specialty strengths has emerged from the TPD reports (section 4).

b) Areas of Concern

The survey results are analysed according to the nine PMETB domains in Section 3 of this document. We have used a three-point grading system to rate the degree of concern for each point – ranging from the highest priority (requiring early attention), through an intermediate grade (requiring further close observation) to a lower priority (unlikely to be significant). This acknowledges the certainty that a survey of numerous trainees in a large number of specialties will inevitably identify some statistical outliers, but attempts to ensure proper attention to the important issues.

Two areas require specific comment, the first being that of patient safety, and involving a small number of trainees in CMT posts (Neurology). Unfortunately we cannot identify the specific trainees or posts from the survey, but the relevant TPD will be asked to make discreet and informal further enquiry, with subsequent appropriate remediation, if possible.

The second specific area of concern relates to BULLYING. It should of course be emphasised that this only involves a very small number of trainee responses, and that there may or may not be legitimate underlying grounds for complaint, but the School is anxious to respond appropriately. The details are found in Section 3.3, and Appendices A and B. It is proposed to investigate this further in all instances by discreet enquiry by the TPD concerned, to promote discussion in the relevant STCs, to communicate concern to all Educational Supervisors and to closely monitor the situation by means of future questionnaires and site visits. One of the STC’s involved (medical oncology) has already convened a meeting with the specific purpose of addressing this concern. A further concern has arisen from the RITA process regarding a single site / consultant, and this is currently being addressed by the local Medical Director and an Associate Dean.

c) Development Needs

The development needs for the medical specialties do not really emerge from the PMETB survey results, other than the obvious requirements to engage more fully with our Educational Supervisors, to address their training needs, and to encourage a higher level of response to future surveys. Individual specialty needs do arise from the TPD reports, collated in Section 4, and are summated in the later section entitled ‘Future Scanning and Assessment of Risks’


2. Please specify the numbers / grades of your trainees receiving remedial training

1 trainee in Dermatology – at SpR level3 trainees in Haematology – at SpR level1 trainee in Occupational Medicine – at SpR level

2 trainees in Gastroenterology were receiving remedial training in 2007, but have since obtained a RITA C (16.5.08) and a RITA G (15.1.08).1 trainee in Nephrology was receiving remedial training in 2007, but has since obtained a RITA C (13.6.08).

Information from recent ARCPs is still being processed and is therefore not yet available.

Your Training OutcomesPlease specify the numbers/grades of your trainees, and summaries the training outcomes. This should include ARCP and examination results, and other outcome measures as appropriate, including progress against curriculum units and data on trainees requiring remediation.

Currently this is only available in piecemeal fashion, due to the absence of clear guidance for the TPDs, and the short notice for the provision of this report. This is in the process of being addressed, and with the support of the newly-appointed Administrative support staff, the TPDs are to be provided with a detailed list of outcomes to be collated prospectively. This will include attendance figures for educational meetings, examination outcomes, ARCP/RITA outcomes and consultant appointments. The small numbers of trainees requiring remediation are listed above.

Current trainee numbers: CT1/FTSTAs CT2/FTSTAs HST Posts

Core Medical Training 92 116 0Acute G(I)M 28Cardiology 35Clinical Genetics 4Paediatric Cardiology 5Gastroenterology 31Diabetes & Endocrinology 26Immunology 1


Rheumatology 16Elderly Medicine 45Neurology 15Rehabilitation Medicine 5Nephrology 19Occupational Medicine 2Infectious Diseases 7Medical Oncology 14Palliative Medicine 12Clinical Oncology 18Genito-urinary Medicine 7Haematology 19Dermatology 10Respiratory Medicine 36

Totals 92 116 355

Achievements/Progress on previous objectivesPlease report on your progress and achievements towards last year’s objectives and actions

The Yorkshire School of Postgraduate Medicine has been in existence for just one year, and has had to overcome the tribulations of MTAS and the controversial selection processes, the new curricula, e-portfolios, workplace-based assessments, ARCPs, etc. Simultaneously it has had to embrace the appointment of a new Postgraduate Dean, merger with the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Deanery and the Tooke review. This has been achieved with no specific administrative support until relatively recently. It incorporates 26 training programmes and 5-600 trainees in 15 training locations.

Despite these handicaps it has identified it’s ‘Core Responsibilities’, created a corresponding managerial structure and appointed training programme directors in an open and competitive fashion to new job descriptions. Several sub-committees have been created and are fully described on a comprehensive website that was described as being of a “gold standard” by the Head of the


JRCPTB (recently demitted from office), and which also contains full details of the training programmes as well as educational material.

A strong sense of identity has been created among the trainees (especially in CMT), reinforced by their regular educational meetings. A sense of ownership has developed amongst the TPDs, who have willingly engaged with the allocation process, ARCP’s, annual report production etc.

Comparison with the objectives from previous years is clearly impossible, but we recognise the areas where further progress is required, and expect this report to form a template upon which future questionnaires (PMETB and Deanery) provide feedback to then measure our performance.

Future Scanning and Assessment of RisksWhat are the expected changes and challenges for the year ahead?

Our first task is to address the messages that emerge from the questionnaire feedback data presented in this report. Each TPD will receive a report from myself that details the overall performance of the School, but especially the perceived difficulties within their own programme – and they will be expected to cascade this down through their Training Committees. Particular attention is to be paid to the issue of bullying, as outlined in earlier sections.

With the opportunity provided by the identification of dedicated administrative support, the quality management processes must become more robust with prospective collection and collation of appropriate data. Specific advice is to be issued to TPDs regarding this. At the same time, full engagement with the Educational Supervisors is essential – this has not occurred thus far. They need to be appraised of all issues that arise from the questionnaire feedback, and their own training needs must be addressed. The recent establishment of an accurate database should facilitate this need.

Integration with the School of Medicine based in Sheffield is an aspiration – preliminary discussions have already been held, and areas of mutual support and co-operation agreed. The development of three locality offices (Sheffield, Leeds and Hull/York) and the appointment of three Deputy Deans (one with a lead role relating to the School of Medicine), will probably stimulate the development of locality-based programmes for the larger medical specialties.


Liaison between other Schools (and their Heads) is being facilitated by the JRCPTB and the RCP, so that ‘good practice’ can be shared. There are moves to co-ordinate national selection processes, whilst retaining strong local involvement.

The Yorkshire School of Medicine recognises the need to incorporate more distance-learning into the educational programmes, with the increasing challenges of the EWTD. It hopes to blend this into the existing programmes that bring trainees together for inter-active learning, and to take advantage of the experience and resources that already exist in the Sheffield School. We have also engaged with the DH initiative (‘e-learning for health’) called ACUMEN, and are likely to be the main pilot site from September of this year.

Our Education sub-committee is seeking to maximise the potential benefits of the devolution of the Study Leave budget to the School, by developing a strategy and guidelines. Similarly, we wish to provide more of our training on an ‘in-house’ basis – thus depending less on expensive external agencies.The medical specialty development needs (from Section 4) contain common themes, which include the need to strengthen the processes of specialty Induction, a task that is already in hand. Also, many specialties identify the need to strengthen programmes in Hull, or to develop links with Sheffield, much of which should become achievable with the appointment of Deputy Deans and the creation of locality offices. Thirdly, some programmes highlight a need to improve research opportunities.

The above list of expected changes and challenges is not necessarily complete, but is indicative of the direction of travel that is currently envisaged.

In addition to the help and support of our trainees and trainers, special thanks are due to Julie Honsberger (Specialty Schools Manager) and Jane Burnett (Specialty Schools Administrator) who have provided extensive support in the production of this report.

Your response will form part of the Deanery action plan to meet the requirement of PMETB’s Quality Assurance Framework.


Section 3 – Self Assessment

Each ‘action required’ has been given a ‘priority’ level, as per the final column of the table.

Definition for each priority level:Priority 1: HIGH PRIORITY – Immediate action deemed necessary.Priority 2: INTERMEDIATE PRIORITY – Immediate action not deemed necessary – for closer further observation.Priority 3: LOW PRIORITY – Not considered to be a significant problem.

1. Patient Safety – Do all trainees Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority

Know who to call for help at all times and is that person accessible?

No The PMETB Survey results in relation to Clinical Supervision are generally satisfactory, however both Diabetes & Endocrinology (core level) and Respiratory Medicine (core level) are negative outliers. In Diabetes & Endocrinology, 2 out of 10 respondents indicated that they didn’t always know who was providing clinical supervision when they were working, but said there was usually someone they could contact if they needed help. In Respiratory Medicine, 4 out of 16 respondents indicated that they didn’t always know who was providing clinical supervision when they were working, but said there was usually someone they could contact if they needed help. One individual out of the 16 respondents indicated that they were left without help at times. Action required: The Heads of CMT have been made aware of these issues and have been asked to monitor the situation.

There were satisfactory results for all other medical specialties.

2

Take consent appropriately? No The PMETB Survey results indicate that in relation to Diabetes & Endocrinology (core level), based on ten responses, 1 respondent is asked daily to obtain consent for procedures which they do not carry out themselves, 1 respondent is asked weekly and 1 is asked occasionally. In Respiratory Medicine (core level), based on sixteen responses, 1 respondent is asked daily to obtain consent for procedures which they do not carry out themselves, 5 respondents are asked weekly, 4 are asked monthly and 3 are asked occasionally. Action required: The Heads of CMT have been made aware of these issues and have been asked to monitor.


2


Have a well-organised handover of patient care at the beginning and end of each duty period.

No It was identified that trainees in Neurology (core) do not have a well-organised handover. All three respondents indicated that handover before night duty was informal. Two respondents indicated that after night duty the handover was informal, and 1 respondent said it was non-existent. Action required: The Heads of CMT have been made aware of these issues and have been asked to monitor the situation.


2

Promote patient safety No Whilst all trainees have a role to promote patient safety, 1 trainee in Neurology (core) has indicated that they are forced to deal with clinical problems beyond their competence and 2 individuals have indicated that they are being supervised by someone who they feel isn’t capable to do so. This obviously raises patient safety issues. Action required: The Heads of CMT have been made aware of these issues and have been asked to monitor the situation.

There were no other negative outliers in any other medical specialties.

1

Have suitable Trust standards for obtaining patient consent

N/A This is a Trust responsibility; therefore the question would be better placed in the LEP Report.

N/A

2. Quality Assurance Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority

All doctors receive a School Induction Yes N/A

All doctors on arrival attend a Departmental induction?


N/A

All posts comply with the Working Time Directive? No As Head of School I am not aware of any posts not complying with the Working Time Directive. Although the Survey suggests that some posts don’t always comply with WTD, there were no negative outliers in this section, and results would suggest that posts within Yorkshire are in line with those in other Deaneries. Action required: monitor and compare with future results.

2

Doctors are released for Quality inspection visits and complete PMETB Questionnaires

Yes No

Doctors would be released, where possible, to attend Quality Inspection Visits – although no visits have taken place as yet. 2


Now that the School of Postgraduate Medicine has a database of all trainees and trainers, the School will be able to take a more proactive approach in encouraging trainers and trainees to reply. Action required: School to be more proactive in future to encourage trainees and trainers to reply.

3. Equality & Diversity Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority

The number of reports of bullying or racial, gender, disability, age or part-time discrimination is zero?

No According to the PMETB survey the following specialties are negative outliers:Haematology (higher) – Other Staff Bullying Score – 2 out of 8 respondent feel bullied; 1 by a nurse and 1 by the whole culture;Infectious Diseases (higher) – Consultant Bullying Score – 1 out of three respondents feel bullied by a Consultant;Medical Oncology (higher) – Consultant Bullying Score – 2 out of 9 respondents feel bullied by a Consultant; Neurology (higher) – Consultant Bullying Score – 2 out of 9 respondents feel bullied by a Consultant;Neurology (core) – Other Staff Bullying Score – 1 out of 3 respondents feel bullied by another trainee.Please see the summary on page 5 for further details on this and actions required.

1

Those providing training have attended suitable equal opportunities training within the last 5 years

No Action required: * Now that the trainers have been identified, the School is working with the Education Department to determine who requires Equal Opportunities training.

2

4. Recruitment Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority

Local recruitment, selection and appointment procedures follow Deanery guidelines, ensure equal opportunities and have an appeals process?

YesN/A

5. Curriculum & Assessment – Do all trainees have:

Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority

Sufficient clinical and practical experience to cover No As Head of School I have not been made aware of any issues. The PMETB Survey


their curriculum has highlighted the following concerns:Cardiology (core): Out of 5 respondents, 2 individuals stated that the practical experience they were getting in post was poor. Two individuals were not confident that they would achieve the required competencies;G(I)M (higher): There were 27 respondents. 22% indicated that they felt that the practical experience was poor. 17% were not confident that they would achieve the required competencies;Elderly Medicine (core): There were 30 respondents. 27% indicated that they felt that the practical experience was poor. 17% were not confident that they would achieve the required competencies.Action required: The School will collate PMETB Survey data and Placement Assessment Feedback data to identify individual posts that may require attention.

Analysis of the Placement Assessment Feedback from CMT Trainees indicated the FTSTA2 posts in Bridlington were not suitable for training. Following investigation, it was agreed to remove these posts from Bridlington.

2

A timetable that ensures appropriate access to the prescribed training events / courses etc?

Yes (No outliers) N/A

Adequate opportunities for workplace based assessments?

Yes It should be noted that some specialties within the School (Clinical Oncology, Immunology, G(I)M) are either awaiting for guidance from their relevant College or have only just received guidance about WBAs, therefore in the absence of College guidance they have devised their own mechanisms.

N/A

Regular feedback on their performance? Yes (No outliers) N/A

6. Support - Do all trainees :- Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority

Have a good quality verbal induction to the placement and a useful induction pack with access to a job description?


N/A

Know who their personal Educational Supervisor is?

Yes (Without exception) N/A

Have an initial appraisal meeting at the start of a Yes (No outliers) N/A


placement and regular review appraisal meetings?Sign a training/learning agreement at the start of each post?


N/A

Have a relevant and up to date learning Portfolio? No Trainees who do not have an up to date learning Portfolio are addressed at RITA/ARCP. The PMETB Survey highlighted that 8 out of 15 Geriatric Medicine (higher) trainees are not using a learning portfolio in their post. Action required: Agenda item for Geriatric Medicine STC meeting for further discussion.

2

Have reasonable access to study leave? Yes (No outliers) N/A

Have adequate funding for required courses? Yes (Funds were underspent in 2007. Funding policies are currently under review by the School Education Subcommittee, now that the Study Leave Budget is about to be devolved to Schools.)

N/A

Have access to career advice & counselling if required?

No The Deanery Careers Advisor (David Clegg) has moved on to another role and trainees, who often consulted David, no longer have this option available to them. Within the specialty structure however there is access to career advice and counselling through the Educational and/or Clinical Supervisor, and the Deanery offers external support through “Take Time”. Action required: None.

3

Have opportunities within each placement to feedback on the quality of the teaching, appraisal & induction or any other serious concerns to the School?

Yes (Via the RITA/ARCP assessments, the Deanery Placement Assessment Feedback Questionnaire and the trainee representative network.) N/A

Have a work load that is appropriate for their learning (neither too heavy or too light)?

No As Head of School I am unaware of any workload issues being raised. The following specialties were however negative outliers in terms of ‘Work Intensity Score’: Diabetes & Endocrinology (core level) and GUM (higher level). In Diabetes & Endocrinology there were ten respondents, eight respondents who indicated that the intensity of the work was either heavy or very heavy. In GUM there were five respondents; 2 who said that the workload intensity during the day was heavy (the others felt that it was ‘about right’), and all respondents indicated that the workload intensity at night was light. Action required: The Training Programme Directors are aware of these results and can monitor the situation, but at this stage I do not feel that these outliers are necessarily indicating a problem that requires immediate action. In terms of workload intensity being light at night-time for GUM trainees, this is to be anticipated.

2


7. Training Management Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority

Follow the Deanery local protocol for managing Trainees in difficulty which involves a joint plan agreed with the deanery?

Yes N/A

The Heads of School and Programme Directors have a description of roles and responsibilities regarding education and training

Yes N/A

8. Resources Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority

Do all trainees have sufficient access to the library and internet?


N/A

Trainees have access to meeting rooms and audio-visual aids


N/A

9. Standards for Trainers Yes / No Summary of exceptions (Specialty, training grade, action required) Priority

Do all Specialty Tutors have a job description and clear accountability?

No Since the inception of the School all new Specialty Tutor appointments follow a clear appointment process, job description, etc. This does not apply to those already in post however. There is clear accountability. Action required: none.

3

Have all Educational supervisors received training and updates for their educational role?

No *The School has only just identified all of its Educational Supervisors, and is now in the process of validating which trainers have not received the appropriate training. Action required: The School is working with the Education Team to determine who has had training within the Deanery. Head of School to write to all Educational Supervisors – to determine training done externally.

2

Have all those involved in assessing trainees received training in the relevant assessment tools

No *Training has been provided in workplace assessment, but we are still in the process of identifying individuals and the training they have done. Action required: as per above.

2

Do Supervisors and Tutors have adequate resources to fulfil their role

N/A Job plans are the responsibility of the individual and local Trust, but the Deanery / School has agreed a funding allowance for Local TPDs/RCP Tutors and stated that this work needs to be incorporated into the job plan.

N/A

All Lead educators have attended relevant Deanery training events in relation to the education and training of trainee doctors within the last 5 years

No *The School has only just identified all of its Lead Educators, and is now in the process of validating which trainers have not received the appropriate training. Action required: as per above.

2

Have a suitable job plan with appropriate workload and time

N/A Job plans are the responsibility of the individual and local Trust, but the Deanery / School has stated that work should be incorporated into the job plan. N/A


Section 4 – Departmental Evaluation SummaryPlease complete this for all Specialties represented within your School (or by Trust for Foundation Schools). Please draw on information or reports from a range of sources such as Programme Directors and College Tutors to inform this section. You may find that asking each Programme Director to submit an annual report, in this format, will help you.

Item Development Needs Evidence Particular Strengths

Acute Medicine The provision of ‘special skills’

PMETB dataTPD report

Very large, new and enthusiastic programme

Cardiology (West) Specialty induction required


Good level of trainee involvement (including website)

Joint training programme with Hull and SheffieldCardiology (East) Access to advanced

training Service/training

tensions


Small, developing programme Trainee website Training programme

Clinical Oncology Awaiting WBA strategy from RCR

PMETB dataTPD Report

Greatly improved new facilities at SJUH Strong OOPE and research Successful appointments of trainees to consultant

postsRespiratory Medicine Evolve separate East

and West programmesPMETB dataTPD report

Innovative US training for pleural disease Innovative e-learning website module

Medical Oncology Meeting with trainers to discuss bullying and other training issues


Greatly improved new facilities at SJUH Joint training with Manchester and Newcastle Integration of Walport Lecturer posts

Renal Medicine Specialty induction required


Good regional training course Improved experience for renal biopsies An academic appointment in Nephrology



Infectious Diseases More research opportunities

To establish a rotation (?)


Good links with Microbiology Good HIV training

Dermatology Consolidate training in Hull – currently a single-handed training post, so training unduly concentrated in Leeds


Good in-patient and on-call experience (Leeds) Excellent trainee feedback

Immunology Specialty induction required


Small programme, close support for trainees Good trainee feedback

Core Medical Training Educational supervisor training


Good induction, generic teaching and trainee support

Neurology PMETB dataTPD report

Successful appointments of trainees to consultant posts

Diabetes and Endocrinology

Specialty induction required

Heightened academic profile


Rheumatology Specialty induction required


Good training days

GIM TPD report No PMETB data

Education – have piloted an RCP ‘Communicating Risk’ workshop

Excellent teaching programmeGUM Need to develop other

training sites – Hull currently not available


Good KBA results

Occupational Medicine TPD reportNo PMETB data

Small developing programme, wishing to expand



Palliative Medicine No integration with Sheffield


Four appointments to consultant grade Excellent trainee feedback

Haematology TPD reportNo PMETB data

Good research opportunities Good malignant haematology experience

Gastroenterology Increased integration with Sheffield


Medicine for Elderly Development of MSc PMETB dataTPD report

Good clinical experience (including GIM)

Clinical Genetics Teaching programme ?link to Sheffield


Good research opportunities Excellent PMETB trainee feedback

Stroke Medicine Very small programme Funding difficulties

TPD report Close educational supervision

Paediatric Cardiology None Rehabilitation Medicine PMETB data Excellent PMETB trainee feedback


annual postgraduate school annual progress report

Documents