uk ambulance service pre-registration programmes · ambulance services. the review focused on the...
TRANSCRIPT
Review of approval and monitoring 2007–10
UK ambulanceservice pre-registrationprogrammes
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page A
Introduction 2
About us (the Health Professions Council) 2
Our main functions 2
Brief overview of the approval and monitoring processes 2
About this document 3
Review of approval activities 5
Background to the programme of visits 5
Preparation for the programme of visits 6
Outcomes of visits 6
The evidence base 6
The impact on resources and timeframes for the approval process 7
Feedback from ambulance services 10
Time taken to complete approval process 11
Communication and information 11
Pre-visit stage 12
The visit 14
The post-visit stage 14
Education provider feedback conclusions 15
Standards of education and training 15
Standards of proficiency 19
Standards of proficiency: further analysis 21
Conclusions on SOPs data 24
Conclusions from the review of visits 24
IHCD as a curriculum-setting body 25
Contents
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page B
Review of annual monitoring activities 26
The history leading to the annual monitoring of pre-registration education andtraining delivered by UK ambulance services 26
Brief overview of the annual monitoring process 26
Outcomes from the UK ambulance service annual monitoring process 27
Evidence base 27
The impact on resources and timeframes for the annual monitoring process 27
Standards of education and training 29
Analysis of Visitor comments 30
Summation of trends 30
Conclusions from annual monitoring activities 31
Conclusions from review of the approval and monitoring activities 31
Distinctiveness of each programme 32
Application of standards and approval and monitoring processes 32
Appendix A – Final outcomes from approval process 33
Appendix B – Ambulance Service Feedback Form 34
Appendix C – SOPs numbering 37
Appendix D – Final outcomes from annual monitoring 49
List of graphs 50
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 1
Introduction
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 2
About us (the HealthProfessions Council)
We are the Health Professions Council (HPC)and we were set up to protect the public. Todo this, we keep a register of professionalswho meet our standards for their training,professional skills, behaviour and health.
Professionals on our Register are called‘registrants’. We currently regulate members of15 professions.
– Arts therapists
– Biomedical scientists
– Chiropodists / podiatrists
– Clinical scientists
– Dietitians
– Hearing aid dispensers
– Occupational therapists
– Operating department practitioners
– Orthoptists
– Paramedics
– Physiotherapists
– Practitioner psychologists
– Prosthetists / orthotists
– Radiographers
– Speech and language therapists
We may regulate other professions in thefuture. For an up-to-date list of the professionswe regulate, please visit our website atwww.hpc-uk.org
Our main functions
To protect the public, we:
– set standards for registrants’ educationand training, professional skills, conduct,performance, ethics and health;
– keep a register of professionals whomeet those standards;
– approve programmes whichprofessionals must complete to registerwith us; and
– take action when professionals on ourRegister do not meet our standards.
The Health Professions Order 2001 says thatwe must set standards which are necessaryfor safe and effective practice. This is why ourstandards are set at a ‘threshold’ level (theminimum level of safe and effective practice toprotect the public).
Brief overview of the approvaland monitoring processes
We visit all the programmes we approve tomake sure that:
– the education programme meets orcontinues to meet our standards ofeducation and training (SETs);
– those who complete the programme areable to meet or continue to meet ourstandards of proficiency (SOPs) for theirpart of the Register; and
– all programmes and education providersare assessed fairly and consistently.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 2
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 3
When we carry out an approval visit, we arerepresented by what we refer to as the HPCPanel. The HPC Panel is normally made up oftwo Visitors, at least one of whom is from thesame part of the Register as the profession towhich the programme relates, and an HPCrepresentative from the Education Department.It is the role of the Education Departmentrepresentative to support both the Visitors andthe education provider. Throughout the visit,we will ask questions of the staff, students,senior managers and practice-placementproviders. We relate all our discussions back toour standards. At the end of the approval visit,the Visitors will make a recommendation as towhether, or to what extent, the programmemeets or continues to meet our standards.Their recommendation is sent to our Educationand Training Committee (ETC) which makesthe final decision.
If we approve an education programme, it isnormally given ‘open-ended approval’ and isthen subject to monitoring. Annual monitoringis a retrospective, documentary, process. Weconsider whether a programme continues tomeet our standards of education and training(SETs) and deliver the standards of proficiency(SOPs). We try to build on the educationprovider’s own documents and processes formonitoring to remove the need for regularvisits. The annual monitoring process operatesin conjunction with the major change andapproval processes. Information on theseprocesses can be found in the supplementaryinformation documents available on ourwebsite.
About this document
This report details the work conducted toreview the programme of visits and annualmonitoring activities for pre-registrationeducation and training delivered by UK publicambulance services.
The review focused on the series of approvalvisits undertaken by the Education Departmentto UK public ambulance services. The reviewalso focused on the outcomes of the annualmonitoring activities and the implications forthe future approval and monitoring of pre-registration education and training delivered byUK ambulance services.
In particular the review focused on:
– the methodolgy the HPC applied indeciding to undertake a programme ofvisits to UK public ambulance services;
– how the HPC plan for the visitprogramme was formulated;
– the impact of the implementation of theapproval visit on the ambulance servicesand the HPC;
– the outcomes of the approval visits andany trends identified from this;
– how the HPC plan for the amendedannual monitoring process wasformulated; and
– the outcomes of the annual monitoringactivities, any identifiable trends and theimplications for the future approval andmonitoring of pre-registration educationand training delivered by UK ambulanceservices.
Introduction
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 3
Introduction
The paper draws on:
– a qualitative review of EducationDepartment records of the amendedapproval process used for theprogramme of visits and a structuredinterview with the lead Education Officerfor the project;
– quantitative data, drawn from EducationDepartment records, describing some ofthe key features of the implementation ofthe approval process;
– a quantitative and, to a limited extent,qualitative review of the reportsproduced after each visit;
– a qualitative review of EducationDepartment records of the amendedannual monitoring process used for pre-registration education and trainingdelivered by UK ambulance services;
– structured interviews with members ofthe Education Department who havebeen leading operationally on the annualmonitoring of those education andtraining services; and
– a quantitative and, to a limited extent,qualitative review of the reportsproduced after the amended annualmonitoring assessment.
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 4
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 4
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 5
Review of approval activities
Background to the programmeof visits
At the meeting held in February 2004, theEducation and Training Committee decided toconduct approval visits to all approvedprogrammes which had not been subject to avisit since the publication of the QualityAssurance Agency’s Subject BenchmarkStatement for each profession. This led to aperiod of activity for the Education Departmentin which programmes that had not received avisit were contacted and visits arranged.The Benchmark Statement for paramedicprogrammes was published in 2004.
In the paramedic profession, many of theHPC-approved programmes are delivered byUK public ambulance services and follow theInstitute of Health and Care Development(IHCD – part of Edexcel) rules for delivery andassessment of the programme. At the time, itwas anticipated that a visit was required toapprove the IHCD model of training generallyrather than visits to specific sites of delivery.Information available indicated that the IHCDmodel was due to be phased out as theprofession made the transition to highereducation. Additionally, the ambulance servicein England was subject to restructuring in July2006 with the merger of services into a smallernumber of larger NHS Trusts.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the future ofthe programmes, alongside the significantresource impact of 34 visits being added to theschedule, the decision was made that the UKpublic ambulance services had first to beentered into the annual monitoring auditprocess before visits would be undertaken.This process enabled the department toprioritise visits appropriately in the schedule forthe following academic year.
In the 2005–06 academic year all UK publicambulance services submitted an audit whichwas assessed by Visitors. Of the 34 auditssubmitted, only three resulted in arecommendation that an approval visit wasrequired. A paper to the Education andTraining Committee on 5 September 2006reported the outcomes of annual monitoringfor the UK public ambulance services. Thispaper stated that the distinctiveness of thearrangements for delivery and assessment ofthe IHCD programmes at each ambulanceservice warranted site-specific visits.
Owing to the continuing uncertainty about thefuture of the IHCD programmes and the recentmerger of English ambulance services, theCommittee directed the Education Departmentto contact all UK public ambulance services todetermine whether they intended to continueto deliver an IHCD programme. Where aservice indicated that it intended to continue todeliver a programme, the EducationDepartment was directed to organise anappropriate visit. At this time it was anticipatedthat, following site visits, a visit to the IHCDwould also be needed to addressgeneric issues.
On 12 June 2007 the findings of the initialcontact exercise with the UK public ambulanceservices were reported to the Education andTraining Committee. That report stated that,although there was a clear intention to moveparamedic training into higher education, thetime required for the transition meant thatIHCD programmes would continue to run untilat least 2008. The Committee decided thatapproval visits should take place at all UKambulance services other than those whichconfirmed that they would cease to enrolstudents after 1 September 2008.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 5
Preparation for the programmeof visits
It was recognised that the IHCD modeldelivered by ambulance services wassignificantly different from the majority ofapproved programmes that are based inhigher education institutes.
As a result, the Education Departmentcommenced work to review and amend theapproval process to ensure it was appropriatefor the visits. This work commenced byholding a meeting with a group of experiencedHPC paramedic Visitors. At this meeting eachstandard was discussed to determine whattypes of evidence for the SETs an ambulanceservice might be able to provide. Thisinformation was then used to tailorcorrespondence and other documents andprepare an appropriate agenda for each visit.It was also decided that wherever possible,the HPC panel would comprise twoparamedic Visitors and a third Visitorfrom a different profession.
A programme of visits was then arranged.The first visit took place on 11 March 2008and the last visit took place on20 January 2009.
Outcomes of visits
All the Visitors’ reports have been producedand considered by the Education and TrainingCommittee. The majority of the programmeswere granted continued approval. There werefour programmes that had approval withdrawn.
Outcomes of all visits, departmental recordsand feedback from the ambulance servicesinvolved meant that there was now sufficientdata to begin identifying trends. All the Visitors’reports can be found online in the EducationDepartment section of the HPC website.
Appendix A summarises the approvaloutcomes reached in the case of each of the15 UK public ambulance services.
As South Central Ambulance Service NHSTrust indicated that they did not intend tocontinue delivering a programme after1 September 2008, only 14 visitswere conducted.
The evidence base
The evidence used to review the visits wasgathered from the Visitor reports, theexperience of a key member of the EducationDepartment responsible for planning andoverseeing the implementation of the approvalprocess, and from feedback sought from the14 ambulance services who were subject toapproval visits.
Visitor reports
Visitor reports are produced after an approvalvisit has been conducted. A report makesrecommendations about whether aprogramme should receive open-endedapproval or re-approval of that status. TheVisitors’ recommendations are based onwhether a programme meets all of thestandards of education and training.
Visitors can make one of threerecommendations.
1. To approve / reapprove the programme.
2. To approve / reapprove the programmesubject to conditions being met.
3. To not approve / withdraw approval froma programme.
When it is recommended that conditions areapplied to a programme, these are detailed inthe Visitors’ report. They always relate tospecific standards of education and trainingand are supported by reasons.
Review of approval activities
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 6
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 6
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 7
Review of approval activities
Agreed conditions can be met by theeducation provider submitting furtherdocumentation to the Visitors. The Visitorsmust be satisfied that the documentationsubmitted in response to the conditionsdemonstrates how the programme meets theSET. Education providers are given twoopportunities to meet conditions prior to a finalrecommendation being made to theEducation and Training Committee.
Ambulance Service Feedback Form
A feedback form was distributed in November2009 to all ambulance services involved in theapproval process. The form was designed togather experiences of the approval processand asked for feedback on a range of pre-visit,visit and post-visit issues.
Issues explored included:
– the appropriateness of publications andcommunications to inform the service ofthe purpose and requirements of a visit;
– the appropriateness of the suggestedagenda and the groups of people to bemet at the visit;
– the documentation required prior tothe visit;
– the role and remit of the HPC and thevisiting panel at the visit; and
– the appropriateness of the report and itsusefulness in clarifying the requirementsfor conditions to be met.
Six ambulance services responded to thisfeedback request. Of the six respondents,five services received reconfirmation of open-ended approval and one trust had approvalwithdrawn. A copy of the feedback form canbe found at Appendix B.
The impact on resourcesand timeframes for theapproval process
From an operational perspective, the workundertaken to visit each of the programmeswas significant. Graphs 1, 2 and 3 show thelengths of some of the stages of the approvalprocess. Graph 1 illustrates the length of thewhole approval process from the date onwhich a visit request was received to the datethe Education and Training Committee madethe final decision.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 7
The approval process for most programmes isnormally completed within six to nine months.It is apparent that the duration of the processwas significantly longer for ambulance serviceprogrammes. This is representative of thecomplexity of each of the approval visits andthe associated impact of time spent workingon these visits. In some cases the process hastaken in excess of two and a half years fromthe date the visit request was received.
This extended duration can be attributed to avariety of reasons, including:
– education providers suggesting thelatest possible dates for their visit to beundertaken to maximise the time topresent documentation;
– extenuating circumstances leading torescheduled visits;
– documentation deadlines being missedleading to cancelled visits;
– the time taken to produce reports; or
– the time required for education providersto meet conditions.
Graph 2 shows the time taken to produceVisitors’ reports after each of the visits.
Review of approval activities
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 8
Dur
atio
n in
mon
ths
Ambulance service
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Wes
t M
idla
nd
s A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Isle
of W
ight
NH
S P
rimar
yC
are
Trust
No
rth E
ast
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Gre
at W
este
rn A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
York
shire
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Sco
ttis
h A
mb
ula
nce
Co
lleg
e
So
uth
Eas
t C
oas
t A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
No
rther
n Ir
elan
d A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
Hea
lth a
nd
So
cial
Car
e Tr
ust
Lo
nd
on A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
No
rth W
est
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Eas
t M
idla
nd
s A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Wel
sh A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
So
uth
Wes
tern
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Eas
t o
f E
ng
land
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Graph 1 Time between visit request received and final decision by Education andTraining Committee
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 8
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 9
Review of approval activities
Dur
atio
n in
mon
ths
Ambulance service
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Wes
t M
idla
nd
s A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Isle
of W
ight
NH
S P
rimar
yC
are
Trust
No
rth E
ast
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Gre
at W
este
rn A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
York
shire
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Sco
ttis
h A
mb
ula
nce
Co
lleg
e
So
uth
Eas
t C
oas
t A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
No
rther
n Ir
elan
d A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
Hea
lth a
nd
So
cial
Car
e Tr
ust
Lo
nd
on A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
No
rth W
est
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Eas
t M
idla
nd
s A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Wel
sh A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
So
uth
Wes
tern
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Eas
t o
f E
ng
land
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Graph 2 Time between visit date and report sent to education provider
All the reports took one month or more toproduce and in some cases more than threemonths. This is much longer than usual incomparison to other programmes: overall 69per cent of reports are submitted to educationproviders within 28 days of the visit date asindicated in the Education annual report 2009.The length of time taken can be attributed tothe complexity of some of the cases and thenumbers of conditions required.
Another resource-intensive period in theapproval process is the post-visit stage.Graph 3 shows the duration of the post-visit stage from the visit date throughto the date the Education and TrainingCommittee made the final decision foreach programme.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 9
Review of approval activities
Previous education annual reports for 2008and 2009 have indicated that the post-visitprocess is completed, in the majority of cases(67% in 2008, 76% in 2009) within fourmonths of the visit date. Only eleven per centof cases in the 2006–07 academic yearrequired more than six months to meetconditions. In all but one case, the post-visitprocess for the ambulance service visitsexceeded six months. The one case in whichthe post-visit process was resolved in less thansix months was a result of a decision by theEducation and Training Committee to withdrawapproval without the education providersubmitting a response to the conditions.
In some cases, the length of the post-visitprocess was affected by the time it took toproduce reports. However, in the majority ofcases it was the result of the time theambulance services required to respond tothe conditions placed on continued approval.
In some cases, education providers submittedobservations on the Visitors’ report to contestissues of accuracy and also to requestextended deadlines or split deadlines formeeting conditions.
Extended or split deadlines were granted bythe Education and Training Committee. Thesewere cases where specific conditions couldnot be met within the normal time frame owingto extenuating circumstances, such as aparticular service waiting for publication ofcurriculum information by the IHCD.
Feedback fromambulance services
Information regarding the ambulance servicessatisfaction with the approval process wassought in the feedback and the results arediscussed below.
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 10
Dur
atio
n in
mon
ths
Ambulance service
0
5
10
15
20
Wes
t M
idla
nd
s A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Isle
of W
ight
NH
S P
rimar
yC
are
Trust
No
rth E
ast
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Gre
at W
este
rn A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
York
shire
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Sco
ttis
h A
mb
ula
nce
Co
lleg
e
So
uth
Eas
t C
oas
t A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
No
rther
n Ir
elan
d A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
Hea
lth a
nd
So
cial
Car
e Tr
ust
Lo
nd
on A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
No
rth W
est
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Eas
t M
idla
nd
s A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Wel
sh A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
So
uth
Wes
tern
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Eas
t o
f E
ng
land
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Graph 3 Time between visit date and Education and Training Committee decision
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 10
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 11
Time taken to completeapproval process
Of the six ambulance services to respond tothe feedback request, four found the timetaken to be satisfactory. The two services thatwere dissatisfied cited the feedback fromVisitors as the part of the process with whichthey were most dissatisfied.
The time taken by Visitors to decide whetheran IHCD programme had met the conditionsset was longer than the time usually taken inrelation to other programmes. The complexissues arising from each visit affected theduration of the decision-making process forthe post-visit stage. In particular, it took longerthan usual to consider the documentationsubmitted. Respondents acknowledged thechallenges faced as this was the first time theapproval process was being applied toambulance service programmes. These issuesare explored further in this report.
We also sought feedback on the three stagesof the approval process – the pre-visit, visitand post-visit stages. The tables andinformation which follow detail the responsesfrom the services.
Communication and information
The services agreed that communication andinformation in the pre-visit stage was deliveredin a timely manner. This suggests the time andresource committed to adapting the approvalprocess and communicating with serviceswas sufficient.
Graph 4 Responses to the feedbackquestionnaire regarding timeliness ofcommunication from HPC throughouteach stage of the approval process
Most services also agreed information andcommunication was delivered in a timelymanner at the visit itself. Our decision toinclude an additional Visitor from anotherprofession may have assisted this processand ensured consistency in the applicationof standards.
One ambulance service disagreed and twospecific issues were seen as contributing tothis. Firstly, the service cited the lack ofcollaboration from the HPC in comparison tothat from a panel at another HPC approvalevent the respondent had observed. Secondly,the respondent indicated that the panelappeared unprepared and seemed to have notread the documentation submitted prior to thevisit. This particular programme was one of thefirst to be visited. The final outcome of thevisit was the reconfirmation of approval ofthe programme.
Review of approval activities
Communication
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
NoYes
Post-visit
Visit
Pre-visit
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 11
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 12
The panel, although fully trained, did includeparamedic Visitors who had not previouslyundertaken an approval visit. It is thereforelikely that the combination of these factors mayhave influenced the experience of theambulance service in this instance. Theplanning, communication and implementationof the approval process aimed to apply a fairand equitable process. The lessons learnt fromthis early visit were fed into future visits andthis is reflected in the responses of the otherambulance services.
Most services found communication waseffective and information was delivered in atimely manner in the post-visit stage. Somenoted the time taken to receive the Visitors’report, and the decision from the Visitors’regarding responses to conditions, exceededthe timeframes communicated in HPCpublications and at the visit itself. However,the programmes of these serviceswere reapproved.
Pre-visit stage
To further explore the application of theapproval process, ambulance services alsoresponded to more detailed aspects of thepre-visit, visit and post-visit stages.
Graph 5 Responses to pre-visit stagefeedback questions
The majority of respondents found thepublication Approval process – supplementaryinformation for education providers to beuseful. However, one service found theinformation difficult to understand.Respondents were asked whether they feltwell-informed of the HPC’s purpose inconducting an approval visit. Five services feltthey were well-informed and one did not. Thatservice did not understand why the HPC werevisiting individual ambulance services insteadof the IHCD body itself. The evidence withinthis report supports the view that all theprogrammes were based on the IHCDcurriculum, but delivered in differing ways.This same viewpoint was held by theEducation and Training Committee and wasa key factor in deciding to visit individualsites of delivery.
The majority of respondents felt well-informedduring the organisation of the visit. The datasuggests the significant resources committedby the HPC to communicate key messageswere expended successfully. This view issupported by the fact that all respondentswere satisfied with the information andcommunication received at the pre-visit stageof the process.
All ambulance services were satisfied with theagenda for the visit and were content that itwas negotiable and could accommodate otherstakeholder requirements. The agenda wastailored for the purposes of these visits andensured the meetings were appropriate andcould be accommodated by each service. Wealso used terminology which reflected theprofessional titles used within the programmes.
Review of approval activities
Pre-visit
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
NoYes
Q6.
Q5.
Q4.
Q3.
Q2.
Q1.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 12
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 13
Review of approval activities
Five services felt they understood who theHPC needed to meet. Confusion arose withone service regarding this issue. In thisparticular case, the ambulance service hadrepresentatives fulfilling multiple roles within theprogramme and therefore, they had to attenddifferent meetings at the visit. This is notunusual when conducting visits to educationprogrammes for other professions. It is oftenthe case that members of the programmeteam are also present at meetings with seniorteam members. The most confusion centredon the roles and titles used within ambulanceservices and further clarification of these roleswas sought at the visit itself.
The submission of documentation is a keymilestone in the pre-visit approval process.Four of the services indicated they were clearabout these requirements. Of these, one notedthat the HPC did not account for additionalmapping documentation which was suppliedby them. That documentation related to howthe programme met the requirements of otherstakeholders. The HPC appoints Visitors toassess how the programme meets the SETsand will consider evidence relating specificallyto these. The regulatory role of the HPC andthat of other external bodies (eg The QualityAssurance Agency for Higher Education,professional bodies, funding bodies) may nothave been communicated effectively inthis instance.
The remaining two respondents were not clearabout the documentation requirements.One indicated that they were unprepared forthe specific documentation requirements.Particular reference was made to the approvalprocess being traditionally applied tostakeholders within higher education who arebetter placed to meet the documentaryrequirements. The final outcome for thisprogramme was to have approval withdrawn.The challenges highlighted by this particularservice regarding documentation wereidentified by the HPC as challenges commonto all sites of delivery. These challenges havealready been addressed within this report.
The second service suggested the publicationApproval process – supplementary informationfor education providers could be interpreted indifferent ways. This issue was recognised bythe HPC at the beginning of the approvalprocess and requires attention since weapprove programmes which vary significantlyin terms of methodology and delivery. Thepublications which detail our standards andapproval and monitoring processes aredesigned to communicate with a range ofeducation providers who operate in a variety ofsettings. As mentioned previously, significantresources were committed to ensuring thatissues of terminology and process wereclarified.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 13
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 14
Review of approval activities
The visit
Graph 6 Responses to visit stagefeedback questions
Most services agreed that the role and remit ofthe HPC were made clear at the visit.All services agreed that the roles and remits ofthe Education Department representative andthe Visitors was also made clear. One servicedisagreed and commented that the HPC paneldid not engage in collaborative discussion withthe rest of the members of the joint panel. TheHPC panel need to arrive at decisionsindependent of any other stakeholders. Privatemeetings are held at the visit and a separateVisitors’ report is produced to ensure this. Asthis was a new process, this may have beenperceived as not being collaborative.
Feedback was sought on whether the post-visit procedures were made clear to theambulance services. Due to the complexityand number of conditions, feedback to thepanel was limited to information aboutoperational timeframes for the post-visit stage.One service commented that although thepost-visit timeframes were communicated,they were not adhered to (28-day turnaroundfor report and Visitor feedback). In practice itwas these post-visit procedures and thetraditional timeframes which proved mostchallenging to the HPC, Visitors and theambulance service.
The post-visit stage
Graph 7 Responses to post-visit stagefeedback questions
Most services agreed the Visitors’ reports wereclear and easy to understand. One disagreedand cited the practice of listing each standardof proficiency (SOP) not met under SET 4.1 asthe reason. The listing of particular SOPs notbeing met for conditions relating to SET 4 isnot a standard practice but is applied where itis deemed useful for the education provider toaddress the condition. Individual SOPs werelisted in 12 of the 14 reports. In the two caseswhere the SOPs were not listed, bothprogrammes were approved. However, sevenother programmes also received approvalwith SOPs listed.
Most services understood exactly what wasrequired of them in order to address theconditions set for the programme. Twoservices did not understand the requirementsto meet conditions. One respondent did statethey required further clarification to gain a fullunderstanding of the conditions set. This wasan expected response given this was the firstHPC Visitors’ report each service received.The Education Department provided additionalsupport to services to clarify the conditionsset. The extra time taken to produce reportsmay have assisted services’ understanding ofthe conditions still to be met. Telephone andemail support may also have proved useful.These measures, although not normal to thepost-visit stage, were necessary.
Visit
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
NoYes
Q9.
Q8.
Q7.
Post-visit
0 1 2 3 4 5
NoYes
Q12.
Q11.
Q10.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 14
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 15
Review of approval activities
Education providerfeedback conclusions
The feedback indicates that this was achallenging process for the services to engagewith. Although they were not familiar with sucha process being applied to their programmes,the majority of services were satisfied with theapproach adopted by the HPC. Commonchallenges highlighted from their feedbackincluded:
– gaining a clear understanding of whyvisits were taking place;
– gaining a clear understanding of how theapproval process was applied and thepotential outcomes;
– understanding the terminology used bythe HPC in publications,correspondence and Visitor reports;
– identifying the groups of people whowere to be present at the visit itself; and
– the time taken to receive Visitorfeedback on responses to conditions.
Despite these challenges, the view widely heldby the services that responded to the requestfor feedback was that the HPC andVisitors were contactable, approachable and well-informed.
Standards of educationand training
As mentioned previously, the time spentproducing reports during this programme ofvisits was greater than usual. This was due tothe high number of conditions applied. Graph4 shows the number of conditions applied toeach programme.
Graph 8 Number of conditions applied to each programme
Num
ber
of c
ondi
tions
Ambulance service
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
York
shire
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Wel
sh A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
So
uth
Wes
tern
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Sco
ttis
h A
mb
ula
nce
Co
lleg
e
No
rth Ir
elan
d A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
Hea
lth a
nd
So
cial
Car
e Tr
ust
No
rth W
est
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Lo
nd
on A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Eas
t o
f E
ng
land
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Eas
t M
idla
nd
s A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Wes
t M
idla
nd
s A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
No
rth E
ast
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Isle
of W
ight
NH
S P
rimar
yC
are
Trust
Gre
at W
este
rn A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
So
uth
Eas
t C
oas
t A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 15
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 16
Review of approval activities
There is considerable variation between thenumber of conditions applied across theprogrammes. In some instances, the numberof conditions is significantly higher thancommonly found in cases of visits toprogrammes that already have approval. Incontrast, a number of the programmes haveless than 20 conditions applied to ongoingapproval, which is relatively typical of aprogramme visited for the first time by theHPC, following the publication of the QAABenchmark Statement. The variance betweenthe number of conditions supports the viewthat the individual ambulance servicesimplemented the IHCD model of paramediceducation in distinctive ways and therefore adelivery site visit was required.
Notably, in the case of the programme whichreceived the highest number of conditions(over 50), an eventual decision for withdrawalof approval was reached by the Education andTraining Committee. The two programmeswhich received 40–50 conditions alsosubsequently had approval withdrawn.
These three programmes took varying times tocomplete the approval process (8.5–30.6months). Therefore, the high number ofconditions applied did not necessarily relate tothe length of the approval process.These programmes tended to haveextenuating circumstances related to keyprogramme team members as the maincause for the extended duration.
Many programmes had more than 30conditions, but less than 40. Programmeswithin this range of conditions reached a finaloutcome within a wide variance of time from14.8 to 20.6 months taken to complete theapproval process. A selection of programmeshad more than ten conditions, but less than30. These programmes took between 15.2and 24.7 months to reach a final outcome andcomplete the approval process. Again, thissupports the view that the number ofconditions does not necessarily relate to anextended duration for the approval process.However, these do further highlight thecomplexities of each ambulance service andprogramme visited, and further support thedecision to visit each site separately.
One consequence to the number of conditionsapplied to each programme is that it made itchallenging to provide useful informal feedbackat the end of the approval visit. In many cases,it was decided that it would be inappropriate tolist the proposed conditions that were beingplaced on continued approval. This made theproduction of the Visitors’ report more crucialfor the ambulance services, as it was the firstopportunity to determine the full nature of theoutcome related to the approval visit andbegin the work of responding to proposedconditions.
Graphs 9, 10 and 11 provide more detail onthe nature of the conditions that were appliedto the ongoing approval of the programmes.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 16
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 17
Review of approval activities
This graph illustrates which areas of the SETswere subject to conditions at each of theambulance services. There is significantvariance between each programme in terms ofapplication of conditions to a particular type ofstandard. For example, in relation to SET three(management and resource standards), oneprogramme received no conditions whilst otherprogrammes received up to 13.
The most significant proportion of conditionsthat applied to each programme generally fellunder SET five (practice placement standards).This is relatively typical of all programmes ofstudy subject to approval visits and is arecorded trend in previous annual reports.Some programmes, such as the one deliveredby the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust,stand out as exceptions to this, havingreceived just one condition related to thepractice placements and proportionallyreceiving more conditions related toassessment standards.
The range and duration of placementexperience is commonly an area for furtherdevelopment in the programmes. Eachambulance service has responded individuallyto the conditions, but the IHCD have alsorecently amended the Rules that dictate howtraining is delivered, to increase the requiredrange and duration of placement education.
For one programme that reached a finaldecision for withdrawal of approval, there werea significant number of conditions applied to allareas of the standards. However, conditionsfor SET 5 came in highest for three otherprogrammes which also reached a finaldecision for withdrawal of approval. There areno clear trends for significant conditions acrossall other SETs.
Graph 9 Conditions applied by standard of education and training
Ambulance service
York
shire
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Wel
sh A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
So
uth
Wes
tern
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Sco
ttis
h A
mb
ula
nce
Co
lleg
e
No
rth Ir
elan
d A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
Hea
lth a
nd
So
cial
Car
e Tr
ust
No
rth W
est
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Lo
nd
on A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Eas
t o
f E
ng
land
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Eas
t M
idla
nd
s A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Wes
t M
idla
nd
s A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
No
rth E
ast
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Isle
of W
ight
NH
S P
rimar
yC
are
Trust
Gre
at W
este
rn A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
So
uth
Eas
t C
oas
t A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
SET 2 SET 3 SET 4 SET 5 SET 6
11 113
7 91
6
7
27
4
68
3
2013 19
1714 7
9
1
8
16
11
5
5
6
7
4
55
6
3
2
4
1
2
54
3 2
13
1
64
7
0
7
2
2
46 3 4 3
7 3 6 3 5 17
1
44 4 3
2 1
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 17
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 18
Review of approval activities
The following graph provides an illustration ofthe nature of the conditions applied.The conditions have been broken intothree categories:
– Resource based – requires changes toresource allocation for the programmefor the standard to be met;
– Documentary based – there isevidence to show that the standard ismet, but documentation requiresupdating to reflect this evidence; and
– Curriculum or assessment based –requires review of the curriculum orassessment procedures to ensure thestandard is met.
Graph 10 Types of condition applied
Ambulance service
York
shire
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Wel
sh A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
So
uth
Wes
tern
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Sco
ttis
h A
mb
ula
nce
Co
lleg
e
No
rth Ir
elan
d A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
Hea
lth a
nd
So
cial
Car
e Tr
ust
No
rth W
est
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Lo
nd
on A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Eas
t o
f E
ng
land
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Eas
t M
idla
nd
s A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Wes
t M
idla
nd
s A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
No
rth E
ast
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Isle
of W
ight
NH
S P
rimar
yC
are
Trust
Gre
at W
este
rn A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
So
uth
Eas
t C
oas
t A
mb
ula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Documentation Resources Curriculum / assessment
11
8
3
14
13
10
20
9
10
13
12
13
1634
5
6
9
169
33
9
10
11
9
8
16
11
2
9
9
3
10
5
6
4
12
14
20
13
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 18
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 19
As is common in many approval visits, a trendemerges which shows that Visitors havereceived verbal confirmation or demonstrationthat a standard is met, but do not receivedocumentary evidence to support this. In 11out of the 14 cases, this type of condition ismost common. This type of condition isindicative that, in terms of student experienceor attainment of the standards of proficiency,the standard is in effect met, but notadequately documented.
Resource based conditions appear in relativelyhigh proportion in the four programmes whichreached a final outcome of withdrawal ofapproval. However, other programmes whichreceived a similar number of resource-relatedconditions secured continued approval.
Curriculum or assessment based conditionsalso appear in a relatively high proportion
across all programmes (excluding EastMidlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust andNorth West Ambulance Service NHS Trust).There is a general trend, demonstrated inprevious Education annual reports, ofconditions being imposed where significantnumbers of standards of proficiency have notbeen adequately mapped against learningoutcomes for the programme.
Standards of proficiency
Graph 11 shows the number of timesconditions were applied which requirededucation providers to articulate particularstandards of proficiency (SOPs). Thedistribution of conditions related to individualSOPs illustrates variance across theambulance services.
Review of approval activities
Graph 11 Number of instances where conditions were applied to SOPs and theirdelivery in a programme
Con
ditio
ns a
pplie
d ac
ross
all
prog
ram
mes
SOPs
0
2
4
6
8
10
3a.33a.23a.12c.22c.12b.52b.42b.32b.22b.12a.42a.32a.22a.11b.41b.31b.21b.11a.81a.71a.61a.51a.41a.31a.21a.1
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 19
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 20
Review of approval activities
In relation to this variance, there is no standard of proficiency common to all of the 14 programmeswhich required greater description. There are, however, four standards which were outlined inconditions placed on ten of the 14 programmes. The highest occurrences are to the SOPs 2b.1,2c.1, 2c.2 and 3a.1. It is important to note that this analysis does not take into account theindividual standards under each SOP heading.
Further analysis was undertaken under each of the SOP headings, to ascertain whether theseinstances were related to specific individual standards within the SOPs, or whether a significantvariance of individual standards within these could be found.
The standards of proficiency which required conditions in 50% or more of the visited programmes are:
SOP heading number SOP wording
1a.1 be able to practise within the legal and ethical boundaries of theirprofession
1a.6 be able to practise as an autonomous professional, exercising their ownprofessional judgement
1b.3 be able to demonstrate effective and appropriate skills incommunicating information, advice, instruction and professional opinionto colleagues, service users, their relatives and carers
2b.1 be able to use research, reasoning and problem-solving skills todetermine appropriate actions
2b.3 to be able to formulate specific and appropriate management plansincluding the setting of timescales
2c.1 be able to monitor and review the ongoing effectiveness of plannedactivity and modify it accordingly
2c.2 be able to audit, reflect on and review practice
3a.1 know and understand the key concepts of the bodies of knowledgewhich are relevant to their profession specific practice
In the majority of cases, it is apparent that the above SOPs fall into a category of professional skillsrather than technical competencies.
Each ambulance service responded individually to the conditions, but the IHCD also amended therules that dictate how training is delivered to include the addition of Module J, which is entitled“Professional Paramedic Practice” and includes explicit delivery of learning outcomes related toprofessional skills, rather than technical competencies. Some ambulance services made thedecision in responding to the conditions to incorporate the IHCD Module J, whilst others took adifferent approach by either including a service-designed module J or amending the programme inother ways. Again, this reflects the significant variance between the individual programmes.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 20
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 21
Review of approval activities
Standards of proficiency: further analysis
The tables below provide further analysis of the SOPs which were most commonly identifiedacross the Visitor reports. Each table is grouped according to the three overarching areas ofpractice as illustrated in the HPC standards of proficiency for paramedics. These are then furtherclassified according to the applicable sub-areas of practice. For the purposes of further analysis,each individual standard SOP is allocated a specific number in order to identify each easily. A copyof this numbering system can be found in Appendix C.
Expectations of a health professional
– 1a – Professional autonomy and accountability
1a.1 Sub Level 1a.6 Sub Level 1b.3 Sub Level
1a.1.i 4 1a.6.i 5 1b.3.i 6
1a.1.ii 6 1a.6.ii 6 1b.3.ii 8
1a.1.iii 5 1a.6.iii 5 1b.3.iii 8
1a.1.iv 6 1a.6.iv 6 1b.3.iv 8
1a.1.v 2 1a.6.v 6 1b.3.v 7
1b.3.vi 7
1b.3.vii 7
1b.3.viii 7
Where SOP 1a.1 and 1a.6 appeared in Visitors reports’, their individual standards (excluding1a.1.v) were referenced in at least half. All sub-standards for SOP 1b.3 were referenced in at leastsix Visitors’ reports. Three individual standards were present in all eight reports in which SOP 1b.3was referenced. These SOPs detail professional skills which are generically applied to allprofessions regulated by the HPC. However, SOP 1b.3.viii is specific to the paramedicprofession and requires paramedics to be able to identify anxiety and stress in patients,carers and others and recognise the potential impact upon communication.
These results suggest that most areas of practice in SOPs 1a.1, 1a.6 and 1b.3 were not clearlydescribed in the programme documentation. Common factors influencing this trend couldpotentially relate to the design and delivery of the individual programme and also the articulation ofthese professional skills within the IHCD curriculum. However, these results are not conclusive andonly suggestive, and would indicate that there was a variance in design and delivery ofprogrammes across each service.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 21
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 22
Review of approval activities
The skills required for the application of practice
– 2b – Formulation and delivery of plans and strategies for meeting health and social careneeds
– 2c – Critical evaluation of the impact of, or response to, the registrant’s actions
2b.1 Sub Level 2b.3 Sub Level 2c.1 Sub Level 2c.2 Sub Level
2b.1.i 10 2b.3.i 7 2c.1.i 9 2c.2.i 10
2b.1.ii 9 2b.3.ii 7 2c.1.ii 6 2c.2.ii 9
2b.1.iii 10 2c.1.iii 8 2c.2.iii 9
2b.1.iv 8 2c.1.iv 5 2c.2.iv 9
2b.1.v 10 2c.2.v 10
2c.2.vi 8
SOP 2b.1 individual standards are generic to all professions regulated by the HPC. Three of theindividual standards were not met in all ten reports. The remaining two individual standards werereferenced in at least eight reports.
2b.3.i is generic to all professions and 2b.3.ii is specific to the paramedic profession. Once againthe data illustrates that this SOP was applied in its entirety to half the programmes visited.
The distribution is varied with regards to SOP 2c.1. Individual standard 2c.1.i was referenced ninetimes and 2c.1.iii was referenced eight times. These individual standards both relate to professionalskills for the gathering of evidence to influence practice, which are generic across all professions.
Similar to the trends identified in SOP 2b.1, the individual standards for SOP 2c.2 were found inmost reports. This SOP, generic to all professions, requires registrants to “be able to audit, reflecton and review practice”.
Again, the distribution of data suggests the IHCD curriculum upon which these programmes werebased may not have clearly described the proficiencies encompassed by this SOP. Alternatively,the ambulance services may not have clearly demonstrated how this SOP was delivered from theprogramme documentation submitted.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 22
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 23
Review of approval activities
Knowledge, understanding and skills
– 3a – know and understand the key concepts of the bodies of knowledge which are relevantto their profession-specific practice.
3a.1 Sub Level 3a.1.viii Sub Level 3a.1.ix Sub Level
3a.1.i 0 3a.1.viii.a 9 3a.1.ix.a 3
3a.1.ii 7 3a.1.viii.b 9 3a.1.ix.b 2
3a.1.iii 2 3a.1.viii.c 8 3a.1.ix.c 4
3a.1.iv 3 3a.1.ix.d 8
3a.1.v 1 3a.1.ix.e 7
3a.1.vi 4
3a.1.vii 1
3a.1.viii 9
3a.1.ix 8
3a.1.x 2
SOP 3a.1 relates to technical competencies a registrant must possess. Most competencies withinthis SOP are specific to the paramedic profession. Standard 3a.1.viiii was referenced nine timesand 3a.1.ix was referenced eight times. SOP 3a.1.viiii relates to the understanding of variousaspects of behavioural science. The data suggests the psychological and social aspectsunderpinning the knowledge, understanding and skills delivered on most programmes was notdemonstrated clearly.
SOP 3a.1.ix concerns the understanding of various aspects of clinical science. Of the five individualstandards related to this SOP, two sub-standards were referenced at least seven times with SOP3a.1.ix.d referenced eight times. These two sub-level SOPs detail:
– the principles of evaluation and research methodologies which enable the integration oftheoretical perspectives and research evidence into the design and implementation ofeffective paramedic practice; and
– the theories supporting problem solving and clinical reasoning.
This data suggests each services’ approach to delivering both generic professional skills andprofession specific competencies differed and the documentation produced for each visit variedaccordingly. The variance found across all the individual standards relating to this SOP stronglysuggests its delivery was dependant on factors concerning the site of delivery.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 23
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 24
Review of approval activities
Conclusions on SOPs data
Further analysis conducted into the mostcommon SOPs contained within the Visitorreports highlight many issues. Firstly, the datacontinues to suggest that the IHCD curriculumguidance, upon which these programmeswere traditionally based, may have notarticulated the standards of proficiency relatedto generic professional skills and professionspecific technical competencies. However, thevariance of SOPs applied to programmes atthe first, second and, where applicable, thirdlevels indicate each service delivered theirprogramme in their own way. The factorsinfluencing the common trends and also thevariance within each SOP could be furtherexplored. In particular, a gap analysis could beconducted within the IHCD curriculum toascertain if any elements relating to theprofessional skills and technical competenciesidentified in the Visitors’ reports could beattributed to the curriculum itself. However, thistype of research is outside the scope andpurpose of this report. The SOPs datasuggests the model of education adoptedwithin each ambulance service differedsignificantly and therefore, the decision tovisit each site and programme accordinglywas appropriate.
Analysis has also highlighted all theprofessional skills which were common to theVisitor reports relate to generic professionalskills applicable to registrants of all professionsregulated by the HPC. This suggests thatthese aspects of practice, which may be foundwithin the education programmes of otherprofessions, are continuing to be developedand embedded within models of paramediceducation. This is certainly not conclusivegiven the size of the data set, however it is stillworth noting as the HPC continues to engagewith paramedic education.
The data also suggests that the technicalcompetencies which related to the professionspecific understanding of aspects ofbehavioural and clinical science were notarticulated clearly.
It is important to note at this stage that thedata above does not correlate directly towhether or not individuals who havecompleted one of these programmes haveattained the standards of proficiency, only thatthe programme documentation did not clearlyindicate how learning outcomes were linked tothese standards of proficiency.
Conclusions from the reviewof visits
It is clear from the data and analysis in thisreport that the normal time frames for theapproval process were exceeded for theprogramme of visits to ambulance trustservices. This appears to have been theresult of:
– the differences between the type ofeducation and training delivered byambulance services and othereducation programmes; and
– the individual complexity ofconducting the approval processat particular services.
These factors were acknowledged andconfirmed by the ambulance services as partof feedback sought from each delivery site onthe implementation of the approvals process.Furthermore, the feedback clearlydemonstrated satisfaction from those serviceswhich responded with the process which wasadopted in light of these issues. The reflectionsreceived from the ambulance services confirmthe additional resource allocated by theEducation Department to implement theapproval process was appropriate, andcontributed to the successful implementationof the approval process.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 24
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 25
Review of approval activities
The data and analysis supports the view thatthe approval process is robust and flexible andcan be applied to programmes which use avariety of educational models. There are areasfor further development, relating particularly tothe communication activities at the post-visitstage, which have been highlighted in thisreport and will prove useful to futureundertakings of a similar nature.
The final outcomes from each approval visitindicate that there is significant variancebetween each site of delivery and this supportsthe decision to visit each site. Trends haveemerged in relation to the conditions applied tocontinued approval, but within the samplesize it is difficult to determine theirstatistical relevance.
Trends have also emerged in relation to theSOPs applied to the programmes. ParticularSOPs relating to professional skills, applicableto all professions regulated by the HPC andtechnical competencies specific to theparamedic profession were consistentlyapplied across most programmes. The datasuggests there is also significant variance inhow programmes evidenced these SOPs.These trends further support the importance ofcontinually assessing the site of delivery ofparamedic programmes.
IHCD as a curriculum-setting body
The range of responses to conditions alsodemonstrates that the IHCD curriculum hasbeen an important element to the programmesthat have been visited, but also thatambulance services have made differentdecisions about how closely to follow IHCDguidance, in the process of meeting conditionsplaced on continued approval. This reflects thestatus of the IHCD curriculum in theseprogrammes as being similar to that of othercurriculum guidance documents for theprofessions regulated by the HPC.
In the case of programmes that have receiveda final outcome of continued approval, it isdifficult to state that they are only comprised ofelements from the IHCD curriculum. In manycases, the programmes incorporate elementsderived from:
– the IHCD curriculum;
– the College of Paramedics’ curriculumguidance document;
– ambulance service-specific initiatives; or
– procedures from higher educationpartner institutions.
In effect, this has meant that whilst many of theprogrammes still contain the programme title“IHCD paramedic award”, it is challenging todefine these programmes as being solely IHCDmodels of education and training. Curriculumguidance documents form an important part ofan education provider’s reference tools in thedevelopment and implementation of anapproved programme of study. However, asthe standards of education and training andthe standards of proficiency are the thresholdstandards required for approval of aprogramme, curriculum guidance documentsare not critical to the decision-making processto grant approval to a programme. This meansthat education providers must be mindful ofthe curriculum guidance available to aprofession, but that each education providermust make an individual decision about themost appropriate way to meet HPC standards.
Accordingly, in conducting visits to each site ofdelivery, this has effectively reviewed all theambulance services and no specific visit isrequired to review the IHCD as a curriculumauthority. Despite the distinctive nature of eachvisit, further analysis of the conditionshighlighted common areas, within theIHCD curriculum, which may not havebeen clearly articulated.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 25
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 26
Review of annual monitoring activities
The history leading to the annualmonitoring of pre-registrationeducation and training deliveredby UK ambulance services
As a result of the review of approval visits, theEducation and Training Committee agreed ona variation to the normal annual monitoringprocess for all pre-registration education andtraining delivered by UK ambulance services,to allow additional areas of these programmesto be monitored.
Brief overview of the annualmonitoring process
When we approve an education programme itobtains what we refer to as 'open-endedapproval' and is then subject to our monitoringprocesses. Annual monitoring is aretrospective documentary process where weconsider whether a programme continues tomeet our standards of education and training(SETs) and continues to effectively deliver andassess the standards of proficiency (SOPs).
From the review of the programme of visits topre-registration education and training,delivered by UK ambulance services, theEducation and Training Committee decidedthat the annual monitoring process should beadapted to reflect the outcomes of the review.In particular the three areas highlighted forfurther monitoring were:
– implementing and embeddingprofessional skills into the delivery of theprogramme;
– implementing the range of appropriateplacements; and
– the availability of resources andconfirming the ongoing provision.
The Education Department adapted the annualmonitoring process to reflect this and askedUK ambulance services delivering pre-registered education and training to submitadditional documentation.
When we carry out an annual monitoring audit,it is normally reviewed by two HPC Visitors.At least one Visitor will be from the relevantprofession and all Visitors undergo a conflict ofinterest process. The documentation isreviewed by the Visitors, along with previousreports from the approval, annual monitoringand major change processes.
The Visitors make recommendations to theEducation and Training Committee. They eitheroutline that there is sufficient evidence to showthat the programme continues to meet thestandards or outline that there is insufficientevidence to show how the programmecontinues to meet our standards. The Visitorscan ask the education provider for furtherdocumentation before making arecommendation to Education and TrainingCommittee. If the Education and TrainingCommittee agrees that there is insufficientevidence to show how the programmecontinues to meet our standards, a visitwould be required to gather that evidenceand, if required, to place conditions onongoing approval.
In the amended UK ambulance service annualmonitoring review, the Visitors were asked tomake a recommendation on both the standardannual monitoring submission that all HPCapproved programmes go through, and also aseparate recommendation on the additionalannual monitoring requirements previouslyoutlined. For ongoing approval to berecommended the Visitors need to be contentthat both elements were evidenced.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 26
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 27
Review of annual monitoring activities
Outcomes from the UKambulance service annualmonitoring process
All the Visitor reports have been produced andapproved by the Education and TrainingCommittee and all pre-registration educationand training programmes delivered byUK ambulance services were grantedcontinued approval.
All the reports can be found online in theeducation section of our website and in theEducation and Training Committee papers.Appendix D summarises the outcomesreached in the case of the eight UK ambulanceservices who deliver pre-registration educationand training.
Evidence base
The evidence used to review the annualmonitoring process for pre-registrationeducation and training delivered by UKambulance services was gathered from Visitorreports produced from the review of eightannual monitoring audits, EducationDepartment records and from the experienceof Education Department representativesresponsible for planning and overseeing theimplementation of the annual monitoringprocess. Ten pre-registration education andtraining programmes are currently beingdelivered by UK ambulance services, howeverwithin the annual monitoring process, it isusual to review full time and part timeprogrammes within the same audit and forthese to be represented in the same report.The graphs that follow within this reporttherefore only represent the eight UKambulance services and the eight audits(as full and part time are usually submittedas one audit).
It is important to also note that the East ofEngland Ambulance Service NHS Trustsubmitted a major change to the HPC inSeptember 2009, which initiated an approvalvisit as an increase to student numbers wasplanned. The visit took place in March 2010and took account of all standards of educationand training. As is normally the case, when aprogramme is subject to the full scrutiny of anapproval visit, it is removed from the next twocycles of the annual monitoring process.
The impact on resources andtimeframes for the annualmonitoring process
From an operational perspective, the work tomonitor each UK ambulance serviceprogramme required an increased resourceprovision at various stages of the annualmonitoring process. However, the overallduration of the annual monitoring process wasnot significantly extended.
Graph 12 Duration between annualmonitoring submission being received andeducation provider informed of outcome
0
1
2
3
4
5Yo
rksh
ire A
mbu
lanc
eS
ervi
ce N
HS
Tru
st
Wel
sh A
mbu
lanc
eS
ervi
ces
NH
S T
rust
Sou
th W
este
rn A
mbu
lanc
eS
ervi
ce N
HS
Tru
st
Nor
ther
n Ire
land
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
Hea
lth a
ndS
ocia
l Car
e Tr
ust
Lond
on A
mbu
lanc
eS
ervi
ce N
HS
Tru
st
Nor
th W
est A
mbu
lanc
eS
ervi
ce N
HS
Tru
st
Sco
ttis
h A
mbu
lanc
e C
olle
ge
Eas
t Mid
land
s A
mbu
lanc
eS
ervi
ce N
HS
Tru
st
Dur
atio
n in
mon
ths
Ambulance service
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 27
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 28
Review of annual monitoring activities
East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trustsubmitted ten weeks earlier than the other UKambulance services and as such, this hasaffected this submissions overall duration.
Graph 12 illustrates the individual durations forthe UK ambulance services to complete the fullannual monitoring process, from the date onwhich the submission was received to the datethe ambulance service was informed of theoutcome. The average duration for the fullannual monitoring process for pre-registrationeducation and training delivered by UKambulance services was 3.3 months. Theaverage duration for the full annual monitoringprocess for all other HPC approved educationand training for the academic year 2009 –10was also 3.3 months.
217 annual monitoring audits were reviewed inthe academic year 2009–10. On average theEducation Department was able to submit anaudit to an annual monitoring assessment daywithin five weeks of receipt. UK ambulanceservice programmes went to an assessmentday on average within six weeks of receipt.Although this is not a significant delay, it hadoriginally been planned that all eight UKambulance service audits would be reviewed inone assessment day, and that the time toreview the UK ambulance service audits at anassessment day would be significantly lessthan five weeks. On 15 June 2010, five UKambulance service audits were reviewed.A second assessment day was requiredand this was undertaken on 3 August 2010.Graph 13 reflects this split between the twoassessment days.
Graph 13 Duration between ambulanceservice annual monitoring auditsreceived and review at assessment day
The main factor that caused the UKambulance service annual monitoring processto be delayed was that the EducationDepartment undertook a second unplannedassessment day. This was needed for a varietyof reasons including:
– the comprehensive nature of thesubmissions and some of thedocumentation not relating to thestandards of education and training;
– documentation being inaccuratelyreferenced with Visitors unable to findwhat the education provider had statedas being submitted;
– apparent confusion about theretrospective nature of annualmonitoring, with documents beingsubmitted well outside of the requiredtime frames, including informationregarding changes that had been lookedat during the approval visit and thosewhich had taken place since; and
– the submission of major changes withinthe documentation.
0
1
2
3
4
less
than
one
mon
th
betw
een
thre
e an
dfo
ur m
onth
s
betw
een
one
and
two
mon
ths
betw
een
two
and
thre
e m
onth
s
Num
bers
of a
udits
Duration between receipt of audit and assessment day
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 28
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 29
Review of annual monitoring activities
The outcomes from the UK ambulance serviceannual monitoring assessment days differ incomparison to the outcomes from all the otherannual monitoring assessment days in the2009–10 academic year. Seventy-five per centof the UK ambulance service annualmonitoring audits required additionaldocumentation. This compares to twenty-fiveper cent of audits requiring additionaldocumentation for all other pre-registrationeducation and training going through theannual monitoring process that year. Therequirement to seek additional documentationdoes have a small impact on the resourceprovision within the Education Department, assome post assessment day action is required.All the UK ambulance services that wereasked for additional documentationprovided this on time and in line with ouroperational requirements.
Standards of educationand training
If Visitors request further documentation theyframe requests around specific standards ofeducation and training. Graph 14 gives anindication of the areas where the Visitorsrequested further information.
Graph 14 Standards of educationand training that requiredadditional documentation
Six of the eight UK ambulance services wererequired to submit additional documentationlinked to the management and resourcing ofthe programmes. From the issues identified,all but one was based around SET 3.2, whichrefers to the effective management of theprogramme. The recurring issue around SET3.2 was that the Visitors were not providedwith evidence that the programmes continuedto be effectively managed because incompleteannual monitoring submissions weresubmitted. In particular, several programmesdid not include internal quality documents andexternal examiner reports and some includedinformation relating to different programmes.In one submission, the Visitors noted a changeto the programme leadership, by reviewing anexternal examiner’s report.
York
shire
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
NH
S T
rust
Wel
sh A
mbu
lanc
eS
ervi
ces
NH
S T
rust
Sou
th W
este
rn A
mbu
lanc
eS
ervi
ce N
HS
Tru
st
Nor
ther
n Ire
land
Am
bula
nce
Ser
vice
Hea
lth a
ndS
ocia
l Car
e Tr
ust
Lond
on A
mbu
lanc
eS
ervi
ce N
HS
Tru
st
Nor
th W
est A
mbu
lanc
eS
ervi
ce N
HS
Tru
st
Sco
ttis
h A
mbu
lanc
e C
olle
ge
Eas
t Mid
land
s A
mbu
lanc
eS
ervi
ce N
HS
Tru
st
Ambulance service
1 1
1 1 1
1
2
1
1 1
1
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 29
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 30
Review of annual monitoring activities
Two of the UK ambulance services requiredadditional documentation linked to thecurriculum. In one submission the Visitorsrequired additional documentation to clarifyissues around the implementation andembedding of professional skills into thedelivery of the programme (the first additionalrequirement in the amended ambulanceservice annual monitoring assessment).
Three UK ambulance services requiredadditional documentation linked toassessment. From the issues identified twowere specific to standard 6.1 (which is linkedto assessment strategy and meeting thestandards of proficiency). In one submission,a comment in the external examiner’s reportindicated a lack of clarity around theassessment strategy. The Visitors thereforeasked for additional documentation to clarifythe assessment design and procedure.Another area addressed under assessmentrelated to a change in external examiner. TheVisitors required clarification that the externalexaminer was on the appropriate part of theRegister. In one review the Visitors notedchanges to the practical assessmentguidelines and required further information.
Analysis of Visitor comments
As part of the annual monitoring process theVisitors have the opportunity to add commentsto a Visitor’s report. A comment would notrequire any direct response from the educationprovider, however, it gives the Visitors theopportunity to offer advice on areas theeducation provider may want to consideraddressing for future annualmonitoring submissions.
Two main areas were raised by the Visitorswithin the eight UK ambulance service annualmonitoring reports. Three of the reports hadcomments around issues with confidentiality.The Visitors noted that education providershad submitted information about individualstudents, including results and individualcomments in minutes. The second issue raisedin the Visitors’ comments in 75 per cent of thereports was around the comprehensive natureof the submissions, as discussed previously.
Summation of trends
Analysis of the UK ambulance trust annualmonitoring Visitors’ reports shows that UKambulance services did not understand thepurpose of the annual monitoring process. Inparticular, a number of UK ambulance servicessubmitted audits which addressed many areasof their programme rather than focusing on thelast two years of delivery.
However, analysis also shows that whilst thisengagement with the annual monitoringprocess was consistent across many of theambulance services, where additionaldocumentation was required, each programmewas asked to submit additional documentationfor individual programme-specific reasons.
All UK ambulance services running pre-registration education and training havesuccessfully completed the HPC annualmonitoring for 2009–10.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 30
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 31
Review of annual monitoring activities
Conclusions from annualmonitoring activities
It is clear from the data and analysis in thisreport, that the annual monitoring activities ofpre-registration education and trainingdelivered by UK ambulance services has takenlonger than usually expected. This appears tohave been the result of:
– the need to undertake a second UKambulance service annual monitoringassessment day due to the individualcomplexity and comprehensive nature ofaudit submissions; and
– ambulance services not alwaysunderstanding the retrospectivenature of annual monitoring.
All UK ambulance service pre-registrationeducation and training programmes have beenable to provide additional documentation whenrequired and have been able to do this withinoperational deadlines. Additionally, allprogrammes have been able to meet theadditional requirements for annual monitoringrequested by the Education and TrainingCommittee. Data and analysis also indicatesthat the outcomes of the annual monitoringactivities of pre-registration education andtraining delivered by UK ambulance servicesdo not significantly differ from those of otherHPC pre-registration education and training.
The report concludes that:
– each programme is distinct;
– UK ambulance services are able toconform to the requirements of annualmonitoring (though at the next auditcycle for ambulance services it will besensible to ensure that copies of theannual monitoring supplementaryinformation are enclosed in initialcorrespondence);
– all UK ambulance services programmeshave been granted continued approvalby the Education and TrainingCommittee; and
– no further amended annual monitoringprocess will be required and the UKambulance service programmes are ableto fit into the normal annual monitoringschedule.
Conclusions from review of theapproval and monitoring activities
The review of the approval and monitoringactivities conducted for pre-registrationeducation and training delivered by UKambulance services highlights trends whichhave been discussed consistently thoughoutthis report.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 31
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 32
Review of annual monitoring activities
Distinctiveness ofeach programme
The review of the approval and monitoringactivities demonstrates that approvedprogrammes delivered by UK ambulanceservices are each designed and delivered indifferent ways. The review of approval visitsidentified significant variance between eachprogramme and the decision to visit each sitewas supported. The issues arising from eachmonitoring submission were in most casesspecific to each programme and additionaldocumentation was required to addressindividual programme specific issues.
Each programme has demonstrated itsdistinctive nature and analysis of Visitor reportsacross all programmes further supports this.Although common trends were identified, eachprogramme has demonstrated how ourstandards were met in different ways. Thereview also supports the HPC position that theIHCD act as a curriculum setting body and thateach ambulance service programme deliversthis curriculum uniquely.
Application of standards andapproval and monitoringprocesses
The outcomes from each process support theview that the HPC standards and approval andmonitoring processes are robust, flexible andcan be successfully applied to programmeswith different models of education. Feedbackfrom ambulance service representatives clearlyhighlights the difficulties experienced inattempting to engage with our standards andprocesses. As this was the first time theseprocesses were applied, further support wasprovided by the HPC where necessary. Theimpact to expected time frames has also beendiscussed resulting from this. Any futureimpact should be reduced as theseprogrammes continue to engage with thesestandards and processes.
Programmes which were approved and havecompleted the annual monitoring process havedemonstrated how standards were met andcontinue to be met. The programmesapproved by the HPC will continue to besubject to our routine approval andmonitoring processes.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 32
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 33
Appendix A – Final outcomes fromapproval process
Service Programme Modes of study Status
East Midlands Ambulance IHCD Paramedic Award FT and PT ReconfirmedService NHS Trust approval
East of England Ambulance Certificate of Higher PT Reconfirmed Service NHS Trust Education in Emergency approval
Medical Care (incorporatingthe IHCD paramedic award)
Great Western Ambulance IHCD Paramedic Award FT ClosedService NHS Trust
Isle of Wight NHS IHCD Paramedic Award FT Approval withdrawnPrimary Care Trust
London Ambulance IHCD Paramedic Award Block Release Reconfirmed Service NHS Trust approval
North East Ambulance IHCD Paramedic FT Approval withdrawnService NHS Trust Programme
North West Ambulance IHCD Paramedic Award Block Release ReconfirmedService NHS Trust approval
Northern Ireland Ambulance Paramedic-in-training FT Reconfirmed Service Health and Social approvalCare Trust
Scottish Ambulance College IHCD Paramedic Award FT Reconfirmed approval
South Central Ambulance IHCD Paramedic Award PT ClosedService NHS Trust
South East Coast Early Registration FT Approval withdrawnAmbulance Service ProgrammeNHS Trust (IHCD Modules)
South Western Ambulance IHCD Paramedic Award FT Reconfirmed Service NHS Trust approval
Welsh Ambulance IHCD Paramedic Award FT ReconfirmedService NHS Trust approval
West Midlands Ambulance IHCD Paramedic FT Approval withdrawnService NHS Trust
Yorkshire Ambulance IHCD Paramedic Award FT and PT Reconfirmed Service NHS Trust approval
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 33
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 34
Appendix B – Ambulance Service Feedback Form
Ambulance Service Feedback Form
Education Provider: ____________________________________________________________________
Name: ________________________________________________________________________________
Position: ______________________________________________________________________________
The Education Department undertook approval visits to paramedic pre-registration education andtraining programmes delivered by UK ambulance services in the 2007– 08 academic year. Thisquestionnaire is designed to gather your feedback on the approval process adopted for these visits. Your thoughts, experiences and feedback on the process will be used to report to ourEducation and Training Committee in March 2010. The report produced will not reference specificnames or bodies, just trends found across the data gathered from this form. Also your responseswill have no affect on the outcome of the approval process conducted for your programme.
Approval Process: Pre-visit, Visit and Post-Visit
Pre-Visit
Q1 – Did you find our publication the ‘Approval process – supplementary information for educationproviders’ useful to prepare for your visit?
Yes No
If no, please use the box below to provide further comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Q2 – Did you feel well informed regarding the HPC’s purpose for conducting an approval visit?
Yes No
If no, please use the box below to provide further comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Q3 – Did you feel well informed during the organisation of the visit?
Yes No
If no, please use the box below to provide further comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Q4 – Did you feel the suggested agenda for the visit was easy to accommodate and negotiate?
Yes No
If no, please use the box below to provide further comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 34
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 35
Appendix B – Ambulance Service Feedback Form
Q5 – Was it clear what groups/people the HPC needed to meet with as part of the suggestedagenda?
Yes No
If no, please use the box below to provide further comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Q6 – Was it clear what documentation we needed from you once a visit date had been suggested?
Yes No
If no, please use the box below to provide further comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Visit
Q7 – At the visit was the role and remit of the HPC made clear?
Yes No
If no, please use the box below to provide further comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Q8 – At the visit was the role of the Visitors and the HPC executive made clear?
Yes No
If no, please use the box below to provide further comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Post-Visit
Q9 – During the approval process were the post visit procedures made clear to you?
Yes No
If no, please use the box below to provide further comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Q10 – Was the function and format of the Visitors’ report clear and easy to understand?
Yes No
If no, please use the box below to provide further comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 35
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 36
Appendix B – Ambulance Service Feedback Form
Q11 – Did you understand exactly what was required of you in order to address the conditions setas outlined in the Visitors’ report?
Yes No
If no, please use the box below to provide further comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Q12– Did you find the time taken to complete the process satisfactory (from submission date ofvisit request form to receipt of official outcome of the approval process)?
Yes No
If no, please use the box below to provide further comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Overall
Q13 – Did you find communication and information was delivered in a timely manner throughoutthe approval process?
Pre-Visit Yes No
Visit Yes No
Post-Visit Yes No
If no, please use the box below to provide further comments:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Q14 – Do you have any further comments regarding the approval process?
________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for completing this form.
Please return electronic forms to us at [email protected]
Alternatively if you would like to complete the form by hand please send completed forms to:
Education DepartmentHealth Professions Council Park House184 Kennington Park RoadLondonSE11 4BU
Please send all completed forms back to us by 18 December 2009.
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 36
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 37
Appendix C – SOPs numberingS
tand
ard
of
Num
ber
S
tand
ard
of
Num
ber
S
tand
ard
of
Num
ber
pro
ficie
ncy
pro
ficie
ncy
pro
ficie
ncy
Exp
ecta
tions
of a
Th
e sk
ills re
quire
d fo
r K
now
ledg
e,
heal
th p
rofe
ssio
nal
the
appl
icat
ion
of
unde
rsta
ndin
gpr
actic
ean
d sk
ills
1a P
rofe
ssio
nal
1a2a
Iden
tific
atio
n an
d
2a3a
Kno
wle
dge
, 3a
auto
nom
y an
d
asse
ssm
ent
of h
ealth
und
erst
and
ing
acco
unta
bili
tyan
d s
ocia
l car
e ne
eds.
an
d s
kills
Reg
istr
ant
clin
ical
sc
ient
ists
mus
t
1a.1
be
able
to
pra
ctis
e1a
.12a
.1 b
e ab
le to
gat
her
2a.1
3a.1
kno
w a
nd
3a.1
with
in t
he le
gal a
nd
appr
opria
te in
form
atio
nun
der
stan
d t
he k
eyet
hica
l bou
ndar
ies
conc
epts
of t
heof
the
ir p
rofe
ssio
n b
odie
s of
kno
wle
dge
w
hich
are
rel
evan
t to
th
eir
pro
fess
ion-
spec
ific
pra
ctic
e
Und
erst
and
the
need
1.
a.1.
i2a
.2 b
e ab
le t
o se
lect
2a.2
unde
rsta
nd th
e 3a
.1.i
to a
ct in
the
best
an
d u
se a
pp
rop
riate
stru
ctur
e an
din
tere
sts
of s
ervi
ce
asse
ssm
ent
tech
niq
ues
func
tion
of th
e hu
man
user
s at
all
times
body
, rel
evan
t to
thei
r pr
actic
e, to
geth
er w
ith
a kn
owle
dge
of h
ealth
,di
seas
e, d
isor
der
and
dysf
unct
ion
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 37
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 38
Appendix C – SOPs numbering
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
erp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
y
unde
rsta
nd w
hat i
s1.
a.1i
ibe
abl
e to
und
erta
ke
2a.2
.ibe
aw
are
of th
e 3a
.1.ii
requ
ired
of th
em b
y an
d re
cord
a th
orou
gh,
prin
cipl
es a
nd
the
Hea
lth P
rofe
ssio
ns
sens
itive
and
det
aile
d ap
plic
atio
ns o
f sci
entif
icC
ounc
ilas
sess
men
t, us
ing
enqu
iry, i
nclu
ding
appr
opria
te te
chni
ques
th
e ev
alua
tion
ofan
d eq
uipm
ent
trea
tmen
t effi
cacy
an
d th
e re
sear
ch p
roce
ss
unde
rsta
nd th
e ne
ed to
1.
a.1
iiibe
abl
e to
con
duct
a
2.a.
2.ii
reco
gnis
e th
e ro
le o
f 3a
.1.ii
ire
spec
t, an
d so
far
as
thor
ough
and
det
aile
dot
her
prof
essi
ons
in
poss
ible
uph
old,
the
phys
ical
exa
min
atio
n of
heal
th a
nd s
ocia
l car
erig
hts,
dig
nity
, val
ues
the
patie
nt u
sing
an
d au
tono
my
of e
very
ob
serv
atio
n, p
alpa
tion,
se
rvic
e us
er in
clud
ing
ausc
ulta
tion
and
othe
r th
eir
role
in th
e as
sess
men
t ski
lls to
di
agno
stic
and
in
form
clin
ical
reas
onin
gth
erap
eutic
pro
cess
an
d to
gui
de th
e an
d in
mai
ntai
ning
fo
rmua
ltion
of a
he
alth
and
wel
lbei
ngdi
agno
sis
acro
ss a
ll ag
e ra
nges
, inc
ludi
ng c
allin
g fo
r sp
ecia
list h
elp
whe
re
avai
labl
e
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 38
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 39
Appendix C – SOPs numbering
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
erp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
y
be a
war
e of
cur
rent
UK
1.
a.1
ivbe
abl
e to
use
2.
a.2.
iiiun
ders
tand
the
3a.1
.ivle
gisl
atio
n ap
plic
able
to
obse
rvat
ion
to g
athe
r th
eore
tical
bas
is o
f,w
ork
of th
eir
prof
essi
onin
form
atio
n ab
out t
he
and
the
varie
ty o
f fu
nctio
nal a
bilit
ies
of
appr
oach
es to
, pa
tient
sas
sess
men
t and
in
terv
entio
n
be a
ble
to p
ract
ise
in
1.a.
1 v
unde
rsta
nd th
e ne
ed to
2.
a.2.
ivkn
ow h
uman
ana
tom
y 3a
.1.v
acco
rdan
ce w
ith c
urre
nt
cons
ider
the
asse
ssm
ent
and
phys
iolo
gy,
legi
slat
ion
gove
rnin
g th
e of
bot
h th
e he
alth
and
su
ffici
ent t
o un
ders
tand
use
of p
resc
riptio
n-on
ly
soci
al c
are
need
s of
th
e na
ture
and
effe
cts
med
icin
es b
y pa
ram
edic
spa
tient
s an
d ca
rers
of in
jury
or
illnes
s, a
nd
to c
ondu
ct a
sses
smen
t an
d on
serv
atio
n in
ord
er
to e
stab
lish
patie
nt
man
agem
ent s
trat
egie
s
1a.2
be
able
to
pra
ctis
e 1a
.22a
.3 b
e ab
le t
o un
der
take
2a.3
unde
rsta
nd th
e fo
llow
ing
3a.1
.vi
in a
non
-dis
crim
inat
ory
or a
rran
ge in
vest
igat
ions
aspe
cts
of b
iolo
gica
l m
anne
ras
ap
pro
pria
tesc
ienc
e:
1a.3
und
erst
and
the
1a.3
2a.4
be
able
to
anal
yse
2a.4
hum
an a
nato
my
and
3a.1
.vi.a
imp
orta
nce
of a
nd b
e an
d c
ritic
ally
eva
luat
e th
eph
ysio
logy
, esp
ecia
lly
able
to
mai
ntai
n in
form
atio
n co
llect
edth
e dy
nam
ic re
latio
nshi
psco
nfid
entia
lity
of h
uman
str
uctu
re a
nd
func
tion
and
the
mus
culo
skel
etal
, ca
rdio
vasc
ular
, ca
rdio
resp
irato
ry,
dige
stiv
e an
d ne
rvou
s sy
stem
s
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 39
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 40
Appendix C – SOPs numbering
1a.4
und
erst
and
the
1a
.42b
For
mul
atio
n an
d
2bho
w th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
3a
.1.v
i.bim
por
tanc
e of
and
be
del
iver
y of
pla
ns a
nd
para
med
ic p
ract
ice
may
able
to
obta
in in
form
ed
stra
tegi
es fo
r m
eetin
g ca
use
phys
iolo
gica
l and
cons
ent
heal
th a
nd s
ocia
l car
e ne
eds.
beha
viou
ral c
hang
e
1a. 5
be
able
to
exer
cise
1a
.52b
.1 b
e ab
le t
o us
e 2b
.1hu
man
gro
wth
and
3a
.1.v
i.ca
pro
fess
iona
l dut
y of
car
ere
sear
ch, r
easo
ning
and
de
velo
pmen
t acr
oss
the
pro
ble
m s
olvi
ng s
kills
to
lifes
pan
det
erm
ine
app
rop
riate
act
ions
1a. 6
be
able
to
pra
ctis
e1a
.6re
cogn
ise
the
valu
e of
2b
.1.i
the
mai
n se
quen
tial
3a.1
.vi.d
as a
n au
tono
mou
s re
sear
ch to
the
criti
cal
stag
es o
f nor
mal
p
rofe
ssio
nal,
exer
cisi
ng
eval
uatio
n of
pra
ctic
ede
velo
pmen
t, in
clud
ing
thei
r ow
n p
rofe
ssio
nal
cogn
itive
, em
otio
nal a
ndju
dge
men
t so
cial
mea
sure
s of
m
atur
atio
n th
roug
h hu
man
life
span
be a
ble
to a
sses
s a
1a.6
.ibe
abl
e to
eng
age
in
2b.1
.iino
rmal
and
alte
red
3a.1
.vi.e
situ
atio
n, d
eter
min
e th
e ev
iden
ce-b
ased
pra
ctic
e,
anat
omy
and
phys
iolo
gyna
ture
and
sev
erity
of t
he
eval
uate
pra
ctic
e th
roug
hout
the
hum
anpr
oble
m a
nd c
all u
pon
the
syst
emat
ical
ly, a
nd
lifes
pan
requ
ired
know
ledg
e an
d pa
rtic
ipat
e in
aud
it ex
perie
nce
to d
eal w
ith
proc
edur
esth
e pr
oble
m
be a
ble
to in
itiat
e1a
.6.ii
be a
war
e of
a r
ange
of
2b.1
.iii
rele
vant
phy
siol
ogic
al
3a.1
.vi.f
reso
lutio
n of
pro
blem
s an
d re
sear
ch m
etho
dolo
gies
para
met
ers
and
how
to
be a
ble
to e
xerc
ise
inte
rpre
t cha
nges
from
pe
rson
al in
itiat
ive
the
norm
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
erp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
y
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 40
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 41
Appendix C – SOPs numbering
know
the
limits
of t
heir
1a.6
.iii
be a
ble
to d
emon
stra
te a
2b.
1.iv
dise
ase
and
trau
ma
3a.1
.vi.g
prac
tice
and
whe
n to
see
k lo
gica
l and
sys
tem
atic
pr
oces
ses
and
how
to
advi
ce o
r re
fer
to a
noth
er
appr
oach
to p
robl
em
appl
y th
is k
now
ledg
e to
prof
essi
onal
solv
ing
the
plan
ning
of t
he p
atie
nt’s
pr
e-ho
spita
l car
e
reco
gnis
e th
at th
ey a
re1a
.6.iv
be a
ble
to e
valu
ate
2b.1
.vth
e fa
ctor
s in
fluen
cing
3a
.1.v
i.hpe
rson
ally
resp
onsi
ble
for
rese
arch
and
oth
er
indi
vidu
al v
aria
tions
in
and
mus
t be
able
to ju
stify
ev
iden
ce to
info
rm th
eir
hum
an fu
nctio
nth
eir
deci
sion
sow
n pr
actic
e
be a
ble
to u
se a
ran
ge o
f 1a
.6.v
2b.2
be
able
to
dra
w o
n2b
.2un
ders
tand
the
follo
win
g3a
.1.v
iiin
tegr
ated
ski
lls a
nd
app
rop
riate
kno
wle
dge
as
pect
s of
phy
sica
l se
lf-aw
aren
ess
to m
anag
e an
d s
kills
in o
rder
to
mak
esc
ienc
ecl
inic
al c
halle
nges
p
rofe
ssio
nal j
udge
men
tsef
fect
ivel
y in
unf
amilia
r ci
rcum
stan
ces
or s
ituat
ions
1a.7
reco
gnis
e th
e 1a
.7be
abl
e to
cha
nge
thei
r 2b
.2 i
prin
cipl
es a
nd th
eorie
s 3a
.1.v
ii.a
need
for
effe
ctiv
e pr
actic
e as
nee
ded
to
of p
hysi
cs, b
iom
echa
nics
,se
lf-m
anag
emen
t of
take
acc
ount
of n
ew
elec
tron
ics
and
wor
kloa
d an
d be
abl
e to
de
velo
pmen
tser
gono
mic
s th
at c
an b
epr
actis
e ac
cord
ingl
yap
plie
d to
par
amed
ic
1a.8
und
erst
and
the
1a
.8be
abl
e to
dem
onst
rate
a2b
.2 ii
the
mea
ns b
y w
hich
the
3a.1
.vii.
bob
ligat
ion
to m
aint
ain
leve
l of s
kill
in th
e us
e of
ph
ysic
al s
cien
ces
can
fitne
ss t
o p
ract
ise
info
rmat
ion
tech
nolo
gy
info
rm th
e un
ders
tand
ing
appr
opria
te to
thei
r an
d an
alys
is o
f pr
actic
ein
form
atio
n us
ed to
de
term
ine
a di
agno
sis
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
erp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
y
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 41
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 42
Appendix C – SOPs numbering
unde
rsta
nd th
e ne
ed to
1a
.8.i
2b.3
be
able
to
form
ulat
e2b
.3th
e pr
inci
ples
and
3a
.1.v
ii.c
prac
tise
safe
ly a
nd
spec
ific
and
ap
pro
pria
te
appl
icat
ion
of
effe
ctiv
ely
with
in th
eir
man
agem
ent
pla
ns
mea
sure
men
t tec
hniq
ues
scop
e of
pra
ctic
ein
clud
ing
the
sett
ing
base
d on
bio
mec
hani
cs
of t
imes
cale
sor
ele
ctro
phys
iolo
gy
unde
rsta
nd th
e ne
ed to
1a
.8.ii
unde
rsta
nd th
e 2b
.3 i
unde
rsta
nd th
e fo
llow
ing
3a.1
.viii
mai
ntai
n hi
gh s
tand
ards
re
quire
men
t to
adap
t as
pect
s of
beh
avio
ural
of
per
sona
l con
duct
prac
tice
to m
eet t
he
scie
nce
need
s of
diff
eren
t gro
ups
dist
ingu
ishe
d by
, for
ex
ampl
e, p
hysi
cal,
psyc
holo
gica
l, en
viro
nmen
tal,
cultu
ral
or s
ocio
-eco
nom
ic fa
ctor
s
unde
rsta
nd th
e 1a
.8.ii
iun
ders
tand
the
need
to
2b.3
iips
ycho
logi
cal a
nd s
ocai
l 3a
.1.v
iii.a
impo
rtan
ce o
f mai
ntai
ning
de
mon
stra
te s
ensi
tivity
to
fact
ors
that
influ
ence
an
thei
r ow
n he
alth
the
fact
ors
whi
ch s
hape
in
divi
dual
in h
ealth
and
lif
esty
le th
at m
ay im
pact
illn
ess
on th
e in
divi
dual
’s h
ealth
an
d af
fect
the
inte
ract
ion
betw
een
the
patie
nt a
nd
para
med
ic
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
erp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
y
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 42
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 43
Appendix C – SOPs numbering
unde
rsta
nd b
oth
the
need
1a.
8.iv
2b.4
be
able
to
cond
uct
2b.4
how
psy
chol
ogy
and
3a.1
.viii.
bto
kee
p sk
ills a
nd
app
rop
riate
dia
gnos
tic o
rso
ciol
ogy
can
info
rm a
n kn
owle
dge
up to
dat
e m
onito
ring
pro
ced
ures
, un
ders
tand
ing
of
and
the
impo
rtan
ce o
f tr
eatm
ent,
the
rap
y or
ph
ysic
al a
nd m
enta
l ca
reer
-long
lear
ning
othe
r ac
tions
saf
ely
and
he
alth
, illn
ess
and
heal
thsk
ilful
lyca
re in
the
cont
ext o
f pa
ram
edic
pra
ctic
e an
d th
e in
corp
orat
ion
of th
is
know
ledg
e in
to
para
med
ic p
ract
ice
be a
ble
to m
aint
ain
a hi
gh1a
.8.v
unde
rsta
nd th
e ne
ed to
2b
.4.i
how
asp
ects
of
3a.1
.viii.
cst
anda
rd o
f pro
fess
iona
l m
aint
ain
the
safe
ty o
f ps
ycho
logy
and
ef
fect
iven
ess
by a
dopt
ing
both
ser
vice
use
rs, a
nd
soci
olog
y ar
e st
rate
gies
for
phys
ical
and
th
ose
invo
lved
in th
eir
fund
amen
tal t
o th
e ro
leps
chol
ogic
al s
lef-
care
, ca
reof
the
para
med
ic in
cr
itica
l sel
f-aw
aren
ess,
de
velo
ping
and
an
d by
bei
ng a
ble
to
mai
ntai
ning
effe
ctiv
e m
aint
ain
a sa
fe w
orki
ng
rela
tions
hips
envi
ronm
ent
1b.1
be
able
to
wor
k,
1b.1
ensu
re s
ervi
ce u
sers
are
2b
.4.ii
unde
rsta
nd th
e fo
llow
ing
3a.1
.ixw
here
ap
pro
pria
te, i
n po
sitio
ned
(and
if
aspe
cts
of c
linic
al
par
tner
ship
with
oth
er
nece
ssar
y im
mob
ilised
) sc
ienc
ep
rofe
ssio
nals
, sup
por
t fo
r sa
fe a
nd e
ffect
ive
staf
f, se
rvic
e us
ers,
and
in
terv
entio
nsth
eir
rela
tives
and
car
ers
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
erp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
y
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 43
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 44
Appendix C – SOPs numbering
unde
rsta
nd th
e ne
ed to
1b
.1.i
know
the
indi
catio
ns a
nd
2.b.
4.iii
path
olog
ical
cha
nges
3a
.1.ix
.abu
ild a
nd s
usta
in
cont
ra-in
dica
tions
of
and
rela
ted
clin
ical
pr
ofes
sion
al re
latio
nshi
ps
usin
g sp
ecifi
c pa
ram
edic
fe
atur
es o
f con
ditio
ns
as b
oth
an in
depe
nden
t te
chni
ques
, inc
ludi
ng th
eir
com
mon
ly e
ncou
tere
d pr
actit
ione
r an
d m
odifi
catio
nsby
par
amed
ics
colla
bora
tivel
y as
am
embe
r of
a te
am
unde
rsta
nd th
e ne
ed to
1b
.1.ii
be a
ble
to m
odify
and
2.
b.4.
ivth
e ch
ange
s th
at c
an
3a.1
.ix.b
enga
ge s
ervi
ce u
sers
and
ad
apt p
ract
ice
to
resu
lt fro
m p
aram
edic
ca
rers
in p
lann
ing
and
emer
genc
y si
tuat
ions
prac
tice,
incl
udin
g ev
alua
ting
diag
nost
ics,
ph
ysio
logi
cal,
trea
tmen
ts a
nd
phar
mac
olog
ical
, in
terv
entio
ns to
mee
t the
ir be
havi
oura
l and
ne
eds
and
goal
sfu
nctio
nal
be a
ble
to m
ake
1b.1
.iii
2b.5
be
able
to
mai
ntai
n 2b
.5th
e th
eore
ctic
al b
asis
of
3a.1
.ix.c
appr
opria
te re
ferr
als
reco
rds
app
rop
riate
lyas
sess
men
t and
tr
eatm
ent a
nd th
e sc
ient
ific
eval
uatio
n of
effe
ctiv
enes
s
unde
rsta
nd th
e ra
nge
and
1b.1
.ivbe
abl
e to
kee
p ac
cura
te,
2b.5
.ipr
inci
ples
of e
valu
atio
n 3a
.1.ix
.dlim
itatio
ns o
f ope
ratio
nal
legi
ble
reco
rds
and
and
rese
arch
re
latio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
reco
gnis
e th
e ne
ed to
m
etho
dolo
gies
whi
ch
para
med
ics
and
othe
r ha
ndle
thes
e re
cord
s an
d en
able
the
inte
grat
ion
ofhe
alth
care
pro
fess
iona
lsal
l oth
er c
linic
al in
form
atio
n th
eore
tical
per
spec
tives
in
acc
orda
nce
with
an
d re
sear
ch e
vide
nce
appl
icab
le le
gisl
atio
n,
into
the
desi
gn a
nd
prot
ocol
s an
d gu
idel
ines
impl
emen
tatio
n of
ef
fect
ive
para
med
ic
prac
tice
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
erp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
y
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 44
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 45
Appendix C – SOPs numbering
reco
gnis
e th
e pr
inci
ples
1b
.1.v
unde
rsta
nd th
e ne
ed to
2b
.5.ii
the
theo
ries
supp
ortin
g 3a
.1.ix
.ean
d pr
actic
es o
f oth
er
use
only
acc
epte
d pr
oble
m s
olvi
ng a
nd
heal
thca
re p
rofe
ssio
nals
te
rmin
olog
y in
mak
ing
clin
ical
reas
onin
gan
d he
alth
care
sys
tem
s re
cord
san
d ho
w th
ey in
tera
ct w
ith
the
role
of a
par
amed
ic
1b.2
be
able
to
cont
ribut
e1b
.22c
Crit
ical
eva
luat
ion
of
2cun
ders
tand
rele
vant
3a
.1.x
effe
ctiv
ely
to w
ork
the
imp
act
of, o
r ph
arm
ocol
ogy,
incl
udin
g un
der
take
n as
par
t of
a
resp
onse
to,
the
ph
arm
acod
ynam
ics
and
mul
ti-d
isci
plin
ary
team
regi
stra
nt’s
act
ions
phar
mac
okin
etic
s
1b.3
be
able
to
1b.3
2c.1
be
able
to
mon
itor
2c.1
3a.2
kno
w h
ow
3a.2
dem
onst
rate
effe
ctiv
e an
d r
evie
w t
he o
ngoi
ng
pro
fess
iona
l prin
cip
les
and
ap
pro
pria
te s
kills
in
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
pla
nned
ar
e ex
pre
ssed
and
co
mm
unic
atin
g ac
tivity
and
mod
ify it
tr
ansl
ated
into
act
ion
info
rmat
ion,
ad
vice
, ac
cord
ingl
yth
roug
h a
num
ber
of
inst
ruct
ion
and
d
iffer
ent
app
roac
hes
to
pro
fess
iona
l op
inio
n to
p
ract
ice,
and
how
to
colle
ague
s, s
ervi
ce u
sers
, se
lect
or
mod
ify
thei
r re
lativ
es a
nd c
arer
s ap
pro
ache
s to
mee
t th
e ne
eds
of a
n in
div
idua
l, gr
oup
s or
co
mm
uniti
es
be a
ble
to c
omm
unic
ate
1b.3
ibe
abl
e to
gat
her
2c.1
.ikn
ow h
ow to
sel
ect o
r 3a
.2 i
in E
nglis
h to
the
stan
dard
in
form
atio
n, in
clud
ing
mod
ify a
ppro
ache
s to
eq
uiva
lent
to le
vel 7
of t
he
qual
itativ
e an
d qu
antit
ativ
e m
eet t
he n
eeds
of
Inte
rnat
iona
l Eng
lish
data
, tha
t hel
ps to
pa
tient
s, th
eir
rela
tives
La
ngua
ge T
estin
g S
yste
m,
eval
uate
the
resp
onse
s of
an
d ca
rers
, whe
n w
ith n
o el
emen
t bel
ow 6
.5se
rvic
e us
ers
to th
eir
care
pres
ente
d in
em
erge
ncy
situ
atio
ns
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
erp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
y
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 45
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 46
Appendix C – SOPs numbering
unde
rsta
nd h
ow
1b.3
iibe
abl
e to
eva
luat
e 2c
.1.ii
know
the
theo
ry a
nd
3a.2
iico
mm
unic
atio
ns s
kills
in
terv
entio
n pl
ans
usin
g pr
inci
ples
of p
aram
edic
af
fect
the
asse
ssm
ent o
f re
cogn
ised
out
com
e pr
actic
ese
rvic
e us
ers
and
how
the
mea
sure
s an
d re
vise
the
mea
ns o
f com
mun
icat
ion
plan
s as
nec
essa
ry in
sh
ould
be
mod
ified
to
conj
unct
ion
with
the
addr
ess
and
take
acc
ount
se
rvic
e us
erof
fact
ors
such
as
age,
ph
ysic
al a
bilit
y an
d le
arni
ng a
bilit
y
be a
ble
to s
elec
t, m
ove
1b.3
iii
reco
gnis
e th
e ne
ed to
2c
.1.ii
i3a
.3 u
nder
stan
d t
he
3a.3
betw
een
and
use
mon
itor
and
eval
uate
the
need
to
esta
blis
h an
d
appr
opria
te fo
rms
of
qual
ity o
f pra
ctic
e an
d th
e m
aint
ain
a sa
fe
verb
al a
nd n
on-v
erba
l va
lue
of c
ontr
ibut
ing
to
pra
ctic
e en
viro
nmen
t co
mm
unic
atio
n w
ith
the
gene
ratio
n of
dat
a fo
r se
rvic
e us
ers
and
othe
rsqu
ality
ass
uran
ce a
nd
impr
ovem
ent p
rogr
amm
es
be a
war
e of
cha
ract
eris
tics
1b.3
ivbe
abl
e to
mak
e re
ason
ed
2c.1
.ivbe
aw
are
of a
pplic
able
3a
.3 i
and
cons
eque
nces
of
deci
sion
s to
initi
ate,
he
alth
and
saf
ety
non-
verb
al c
omm
unic
atio
n co
ntin
ue, m
odify
or
ceas
e le
gisl
atio
n, a
nd a
ny
and
how
this
can
be
trea
tmen
t or
the
use
of
rele
vant
saf
ety
polic
ies
affe
cted
by
cultu
re, a
ge,
tech
niqu
es o
r pr
oced
ures
, an
d pr
oced
ures
in fo
rce
ethn
icity
, gen
der,
relig
ious
an
d re
cord
the
deci
sion
s at
the
wor
kpla
ce, s
uch
belie
fs a
nd s
ocio
-eco
nom
ic
and
reas
onin
g as
inci
dent
repo
rtin
g,
stat
usap
prop
riate
lyan
d be
abl
e to
act
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
ese
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
erp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
y
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 46
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 47
Appendix C – SOPs numbering
unde
rsta
nd th
e ne
ed to
1b
.3.v
be a
ble
to m
ake
2c.1
.vbe
abl
e to
wor
k sa
fely,
3a
.3 ii
prov
ide
serv
ice
user
s ju
dgem
ents
on
the
incl
udin
g be
ing
able
to
(or
peop
le a
ctin
g on
thei
r ef
fect
iven
ess
of
sele
ct a
ppro
pria
te
beha
lf) w
ith th
e in
form
atio
n pr
oced
ures
haza
rd c
ontr
ol a
nd r
isk
nece
ssar
y to
ena
ble
them
m
anag
emen
t, re
duct
ion
to m
ake
info
rmed
dec
isio
nsor
elim
inat
ion
tech
niqu
es
in a
saf
e m
anne
r in
ac
cord
ance
with
hea
lth
and
safe
ty le
gisl
atio
n
unde
rsta
nd th
e ne
ed to
1b
.3 v
ibe
abl
e to
use
qua
lity
2c.1
.vi
be a
ble
to s
elec
t 3a
.3 ii
ius
e an
app
ropr
iate
co
ntro
l and
qua
lity
appr
opria
te p
erso
nal
inte
rpre
ter
to a
ssis
t as
sura
nce
tech
niqu
es,
prot
ectiv
e eq
uipm
ent
patie
nts
who
se fi
rst
incl
udin
g re
stor
ativ
e an
d us
e it
corr
ectly
lang
uage
is n
ot E
nglis
h,
actio
nw
here
ver
poss
ible
reco
gnis
e th
at
1b.3
vii
2c.2
be
able
to
aud
it,
2c.2
be a
ble
to e
stab
lish
safe
3a
.3 iv
rela
tions
hips
with
ser
vice
re
flect
on
and
rev
iew
en
viro
nmen
ts fo
r pr
actic
e,
user
s sh
ould
be
base
d on
p
ract
ice
whi
ch m
inim
ise
risks
to
mut
ual r
espe
ct a
nd tr
ust,
serv
ice
user
s, th
ose
and
be a
ble
to m
aint
ain
trea
ting
them
, and
hi
gh s
tand
ards
of c
are
othe
rs, i
nclu
ding
the
even
in s
ituat
ions
of
use
of h
azar
d co
ntro
l and
pers
onal
inco
mpa
tibilit
ypa
rtic
ular
ly in
fect
ion
cont
rol
be a
ble
to id
entif
y an
xiet
y 1b
.3. v
iiiun
ders
tand
the
prin
cipl
es
2c.2
.iun
ders
tand
and
be
able
3a
.3 v
and
stre
ss in
pat
ient
s,
of q
ualit
y co
ntro
l and
to
app
ly a
ppro
pria
te
care
rs a
nd o
ther
s an
d qu
ality
ass
uran
cem
ovin
g an
d ha
ndlin
g re
cogn
ise
the
pote
ntia
l te
chni
ques
impa
ct u
pon
com
mun
icat
ion
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
erp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
y
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 47
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 48
Appendix C – SOPs numbering
1b. 4
und
erst
and
the
1b
.4be
aw
are
of th
e ro
le o
f 2c
.2.ii
unde
rsta
nd th
e na
ture
3a
.3 v
ine
ed fo
r ef
fect
ive
audi
t and
revi
ew in
qua
lity
and
purp
ose
of s
teril
e co
mm
unic
atio
n m
anag
emen
t, in
clud
ing
field
s an
d th
e pa
ram
edic
’s
thro
ugho
ut t
he c
are
of
qual
ity c
ontr
ol, q
ualit
y ro
le a
nd re
spon
sibi
lity
for
the
serv
ice
user
assu
ranc
e an
d th
e us
e of
m
aint
aini
ng th
emap
prop
riate
out
com
e m
easu
res
reco
gnis
e th
e ne
ed to
use
1b
.4.i
be a
ble
to m
aint
ain
an
2c.2
.iiin
terp
erso
nal s
kills
to
effe
ctiv
e au
dit t
rail
and
enco
urag
e th
e ac
tive
wor
k to
war
ds c
ontin
ual
part
icip
atio
n of
ser
vice
im
prov
emen
tus
ers
part
icip
ate
in q
ualit
y 2c
.2.iv
assu
ranc
e pr
ogra
mm
es,
whe
re a
ppro
pria
te
unde
rsta
nd th
e va
lue
of
2c.2
.vre
flect
ion
on p
ract
ice
and
the
need
to re
cord
the
outc
ome
of s
uch
refle
ctio
n
reco
gnis
e th
e va
lue
of
2c.2
.vi
case
con
fere
nces
and
ot
her
met
hods
of r
evie
w
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
er
Sta
ndar
d o
f N
umb
erp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
yp
rofic
ienc
y
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 48
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 49
Appendix D – Final outcomes fromannual monitoring
Ambulance trust Program name Mode of study Status
East Midlands Ambulance IHCD Paramedic Award FT and PT Continues to meet Service NHS Trust the standards
London Ambulance Service IHCD Paramedic Award Block Continues to meet NHS Trust the standards
North West Ambulance IHCD Paramedic Award Block Continues to meet Service NHS Trust the standards
Northern Ireland Ambulance Paramedic-in-training FT Continues to meet Service Health and the standardsSocial Care Trust
Scottish Ambulance IHCD Paramedic Award FT Continues to meetCollege the standards
South Western Ambulance IHCD Paramedic Award FT Continues to meet Service NHS Trust the standards
Welsh Ambulance Services IHCD Paramedic Award FT Continues to meet NHS Trust the standards
Yorkshire Ambulance IHCD Paramedic Award FT and PT Continues to meet Service NHS Trust the standards
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 49
UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 50
List of graphs
Graph 1 Time between visit request received and final decision by Education and TrainingCommittee 8
Graph 2 Time between visit date and report sent to education provider 9
Graph 3 Time between visit date and Education and Training Committee decision 10
Graph 4 Responses to the feedback questionnaire regarding timelines of communication fromHPC throughout each stage of the approval process 11
Graph 5 Responses to pre-visit stage feedback questions 12
Graph 6 Responses to visit stage feedback questions 14
Graph 7 Responses to post-visit stage feedback questions 14
Graph 8 Number of conditions applied to each programme 15
Graph 9 Conditions applied by standard of education and training 17
Graph 10 Types of condition applied 18
Graph 11 Number of instances where conditions were applied to SOPs and their delivery in aprogramme 19
Graph 12 Duration between annual monitoring submission being received and education providerinformed of outcome 27
Graph 13 Duration between ambulance trust annual monitoring audits received and review atassessment day 28
Graph 14 Standards of education and training that required additional documentation 29
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 50
This document is available in alternativeformats and Welsh on request.Call 020 7840 9806or email publications@hpc–uk.org
Park House184 Kennington Park RoadLondon SE11 4BU
tel+44 (0)20 7582 0866fax +44 (0)20 7820 9684www.hpc–uk.org
© Health Professions CouncilPublication code 20110117kAPVPPR (published January 2011)This document has been produced using trees from sustainable forests
Cert no. SGS-COC-003142
64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 51