1. The Science Council’s CPD Monitoring Guidelines
Presented by Trevor Lewis
Chair of the CPD Learning Group
At the Science Council’s CPD Monitoring Forum
2nd February 2018

2. The CPD Monitoring Guidelines issued in April 2017
An overview of the guidelines
Key areas that have been clarified in revising the guidelines (from the 2010/12 version)
The audit process
Templates and forms that support the CPD monitoring process

3. Guidance or Requirement?
Annual Monitoring of CPD for Science Council Registrants: Guidance for Licensed Bodies.
The registrant annual renewal process
Licensed Bodies are required to comply fully with this guidance.
Points 1-21 define minimum requirements
Points provide examples of best practice
Glossary provides clarification of terminology
Templates provide useful exemplars

4. A two stage process (Pt 5 & Pt 1)
Licensed Bodies shall carry out annually a 2-stage process seeking at least a declaration from all registrants
Professionally active as a scientist
Comply with Science Council CPD standards
and then select a sample of Registrants for audit to determine whether they comply with the Science Council’s CPD standards.

5. Professionally Active
The term professionally active is used to indicate that an individual is performing a role that requires them to keep their knowledge and competence up to date.  
It does not need to be full-time or paid work and so members who are notionally retired but engaged in volunteering, outreach or consultancy, for example, should consider themselves as professionally active and undertake relevant CPD.  
In contrast, someone who is reading journals and attending lectures out of personal interest but is no longer actively contributing to the profession either through paid employment or volunteering of some kind would not be considered professionally active.

6. CPD Standards
Maintain a continuous, up-to-date and accurate record of their CPD activities;
Demonstrate that their CPD activities are a mixture of learning activities relevant to current or future practice;
Seek to ensure that their CPD has benefited the quality of their practice;
Seek to ensure that their CPD has benefited the users of their work (employer, customer, student etc);
Maintain a portfolio containing evidence of their CPD.

7. A mixture of learning activities
e.g. experiential learning, in-service training, secondments, supervision
Work based learning
e.g. involvement in a professional body, giving presentations at conferences, networking
Professional activity
e.g. writing articles / papers, attending training courses or scientific meetings, gaining qualifications
Formal / Educational
e.g. reading journals, reviewing books / articles, reflective practice
Self-directed learning
e.g. relevant transferable skills developed through involvement in strategic projects & community work
Other

8. Audit – what, how & how many
(Pt 13) Licensed Bodies should select the sample for audit using a random process; however if certain groups are identified to be at greater risk then their chance of selection should be increased.
(Pt 6) Licensed Bodies shall audit at least 2.5% of their Eligible Registrants or 20 whichever is the larger; or all of their Eligible Registrants, where this number is less than 20.
(Pt 6) If a Licensed Body has Registrants on more than one register then pool across registers to determine the appropriate audit size and stratify to ensure the numbers audited from each register reflect the proportions of Registrants on each register.
The audit is the process by which compliance with the Science Council’s CPD standards is assessed. A sample of Registrants is selected for audit. The audit is carried out by a panel of suitably trained and qualified assessors.

9. Eligible Registrants (Pts 3,4,15,16)
Career break
Extenuating circumstances
Became registrants in the last year
Fully complied in last year’s audit
Eligible Registrants are those who make the declaration and do not fall into the following categories:
Recovered from extenuating circumstances
Returned from career break
Required to be re-audited following previous year’s audit
Risk based assessment should ensure the following are included in the audit sample

10. Joint Monitoring Process
It is particularly targeted at Licensed Bodies with a small number of Registrants to provide an efficient process for auditing.
The Licensed Bodies retain direct contact with their Registrants in requesting information for audit, making the final decision and providing feedback.
The Science Council administer the process; provide the template for making audit submissions; and co-ordinate the activities of the assessors.
The Joint Monitoring Process (JMP) is co-ordinated by the Science Council and provides a standardised process for carrying out auditing of CPD returns as part of the annual renewal process.

11. Assessment and Feedback (Pts 9, 10, 12)
Trained in-line with SC assessor training module
At least one on same/higher SC register
Assessment: Each audit return assessed by 2 or more assessors
Specific feedback to audited registrants
General feedback to all registrants
Feedback to registrants
Maintain an audit trail of the entire process

12. Removal from the Register
inform them of their right to appeal
Inform them that they must wait at least 18 months before re-applying
When notifying the registrant
As soon as final decision made
Certainly by the time of the next data transfer
Notify the Science Council of removals

13. Audit Review Form The Numbers
Initial stage (pre-audit)
Audit stage
Total Registrants requested to submit a declaration
Registrants not eligible for audit
Career break or extenuating circumstances
Became a registrant in past year
Successfully completed audit last year
Failed to respond to request and so removed from register
Resignation following request for declaration
Total Registrants eligible for audit
Total Registrants audited this year
Renewals
Registrants adjudged to have met the standard in full
Registrants meeting the standard after request for further information
Registrants selected for audit the following year
Removals
Registrants removed due to failure to meet standard
Registrants removed due to refusal to provide record
Resignations at point of audit

14. Audit Review Form The Feedback
Staff Feedback
Areas of good practice
Areas of difficulty
Assessor Feedback
Registrant Feedback

15. Registrants have at most 3 months to provide declaration
Timeline – Pts 2, 8, 11
Registrants have at most 3 months to provide declaration
At most 3 months for initial audit process (selection, preparation, submission)
At most 3 months to deal with re-submissions (assessment , request, prepare and re-assess)
At most 3 months for LBs to prepare and submit Audit Review Form to Science Council

16. Timeline – merit in making it shorter
Provide registrants with the timeline for the renewal process well in advance.
Shortening the time to make the declaration can increase response rate and avoid the need for reminders.
With advance notice, the registrants CPD summary should be in good shape and so preparation of audit material should not be too onerous

17. Examples of best practice Pts (22-26)
Annual reminder about Code of Conduct
Highlight examples of good CPD practice (case studies, exemplars, articles, awards)
Use of online systems for recording and assessing CPD
Mapping other schemes used by LB members
Recognition of Science Council Employer CPD Approved Schemes

18. Breakout 1
Identifying and resolving areas of uncertainty for LB implementation of the Guidelines
Useful questions (& answers) for an FAQ document
Timelines used by LBs – what works well?
The templates (CPD recording, assessment, audit review form) – any comments?
Best practice suggestions that enhance the process for registrants (and LBs)