The FP Reference Guide Stuart Carney & Carrie Moore UKFPO
The Reference Guide The review process Key changes August 2009 revisions August 2010 – 2 nd Edition Discussion Implementation Communications
The Reference Guide Like the “Gold Guide” Provides guidance on culture, structures and systems required to deliver the FP Curriculum. 1 st edition 2005 1 st revision 2007 2 nd revision 2009 2 nd edition 2010
Objectives Common UK-wide Operational Framework Requirements to enable FP curriculum delivery Supports quality management Aligned to Gold Guide where appropriate
Timeline August nd revision – urgent changes October 2009First full draft for comment February 2010“Health check” by regulators March 2010Submit to 4 UK health departments for approval April 2010Publish 2 nd edition August 2010Implementation
The Review Process Proposal Stakeholder Discussion and Review Legal E&D UK FP Board Regulators The Four UK Health Departments
Changes No provision to hold places for those who fail finals Foundation Schools can only prospectively approve the second year of a two-year programme for acquisition of competences outside of the UK Requirement to complete PMETB / COPMeD survey
LATs and LAS’ F1 vacancies Less than or equal to 12 months Post-registration doctors LAS posts F2 vacancies 12 month posts must be appointed with deanery/foundation school and enable completion of FACD <12 month = LAS posts
Supervision Educational/Clinical supervisors Must be registered and licensed medical practitioners Adequate time in job-plans and appraised Academic supervisor Must liaise with educational supervisor Adequate time in job-plan and appraised
Transfer of Information Aims to highlight doctors who may require additional support Information for FSDs and FTPDs Future developments expected
Inter-School Transfers Uses same criteria as special circumstances: Carer responsibilities Medical condition or disability requiring local follow-up Typically restricted to August transfers
Inappropriate tasks Prescription and transcription of cytotoxic or immunosuppressive drugs Must be specifically trained and assessed Appropriate supervision Consent F1 and F2 requirements aligned to GMC guidance Must understand the proposed intervention, risks, and prepared to answer questions
Review of Progress Annual review for all foundation doctors Should convene a panel comprising two members to consider outcome Doctors in difficulty Panel chaired by FTPD with an educational supervisor and a lay person Advise FSD about outcome and further action
Discussion How will you implement the changes? Timing Resources What additional communication support should the UKFPO provide?