Health Education South London Standards For Assuring Quality in Practice Placements Final Summary Report S Ait

Standards for Assuring Quality in Practice
Placements
Health Education South London
Undertaken by Susan Aitkenhead on behalf of Health Education South London
Report Summary
August 2014
Chapte Title Page

Developing people The Local Education and Training Board for South
r London
for health and
healthcare www.southlondon.hee.nhs.uk
info@southlondon.hee.nhs.uk
Page
1 Background and Rationale 3

2 Project Framework 6
3 Alignment to the development of a HESL Quality Framework 8
4 Project Methodology: Phase ONE 10
5 Project Methodology: Phase TWO 12
6 Assessment against the Standards the Non-Medical Approach 13
7 The Developmental Pilot Sites 15
8 Testing of the Standards in the Developmental Pilot Sites 17
9 Data and Intelligence from the Developmental Pilot Sites 19
10 Feedback from the Developmental Pilot Sites 21
11 Further Refinement of the Standards 25
12 Recommendations 28
13 Next Steps 30
14 References 31
15 Glossary 34
16 Appendix Stakeholders, Project Board Members and Acknowledgements 36
Figure One: Education Outcomes Framework 3
Figure Two: Health Education South London Quality Metrics 8
Figure Three: Standards for Assuring Quality in Practice Placements 25
Please note:
This is a summarised version of the final project report; that final report additionally includes in detail:
Data/intelligence gathered, including exemplar practices;

Nationally legislated regulatory monitoring and assurance responsibilities;
Mandated roles and responsibilities; and,
Other monitoring and assurance processes.
1.0 Background and Rationale
for health and London
healthcare www.southlondon.hee.nhs.uk 2
1.1 As the local arm of Health Education England (HEE), Health Education South London (HESL)
is a membership organisation working in collaboration with partners to ensure the provision of
high quality, future-focused workforce education and training. South London is home to world
class universities and research centres, and contributes to the overall wealth of the country, as
well as providing high quality healthcare for patients drawn from around London and the UK.
Some employers are responsible for large numbers of staff, and have an international profile;
covering some of the richest and poorest local authorities in England. This varied provider
profile and a complexity of a diverse population of just over 3 million offers many challenges to
workforce planning and education commissioning processes, and the HESL Workforce Skills
and Development Strategy 2013/14 2017/18 has the over-arching objective to design,
develop and deliver a workforce that will lead to sustainable improvements in the health and
well-being of the population of South London.
1.2 The Department of Health (DH) published the Education Outcomes Framework (EOF) in 2013
with details of the proposed five domains, confirming the intention that the EOF, will directly
link education and learning to improvements in patient care and health outcomes. The
proposed five domains were also considered as being central to the project (Figure One):
Figure One
1.3 The HESL Strategy affirms that the training and education of our workforce, whether initial
undergraduate training or via CPPD, reflects the way healthcare delivery is moving and
contributes to the requirements of the Education Outcomes Framework. It advocates that the
closer education and training is to real life working experiences, the better prepared the
individual.
1.4 However in the real life working environment significant changes have been occurring
following several high profile failures of care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has taken
account of the emerging thinking from many recent reviews and initiatives, including the
Berwick task force looking at safety in the NHS (2013), the Cavendish review into the non-
professional care workforce in health and social care (2013), and the review of complaints by
Professor Tricia Hart and Ann Clwyd MP (2013).
1.5 Professor Sir Bruce Keoghs review into the quality of care and treatment provided by fourteen
Trusts in England (July 2013) refers frequently to the value of learners and the fact that they
are potentially our most powerful agents for change. The report particularly highlighted that
learners were very much capable of providing valuable insights, but that too many are not
being valued or listened to. Junior doctors were identified as receiving inadequate supervision
and support, particularly when dealing with complex issues out of hours and that they often felt
disenfranchised.
1.6 The final Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry by Sir Robert Francis (2013)
has several recommendations pertinent to education and training central to the report, urging
that providers of clinical placements should be unable to take on students or learners in areas
which do not comply with fundamental patient safety and quality standards.
1.7 The government response to the final Francis Report, Hard Truths: the Journey to Putting
Patients First was published in November 2013. Education and training are concurrent themes
throughout the response and it is particularly highlighted that education and training are critical
to securing the culture change necessary for the best patient care now and in the future.
1.7.1 Importantly the response also states that systematically creating an environment in
which compassionate care is the norm requires imaginative commissioning,
organisational commitment, planning, education, training, reinforcement through
leadership and insightful scrutiny and challenge. The document advocates that it is
the very opposite of the soft issue it can too often be characterised as. Ensuring
compassionate care is therefore not an issue for organisations providing care. It is,
along with safety, the essence of the business that they are in.
1.7.2 The importance of bringing the medical and non-medical professionals together is also
highlighted within the Hard Truths. The government response recommends education
and training that supports practitioners to work collaboratively as part of multi-
disciplinary teams it states that too much education and training is undertaken within
professional and practitioner boundaries which contrasts with modern ways of working
and the needs of people using services.
1.8 Additionally the aim for education providers and employers to work together with a joint
objective of continually improving the quality of the practice learning environment has been
demonstrated with the introduction earlier last year of the non medical placement tariff. The DH
has advised that the move to a tariff based system for education and training is to enable a
national approach to the funding of all clinical placements (both medical and non medical) and
postgraduate medical programmes to support a level playing field between providers.
1.9 The Health Education South London Delivery Plan 2014/15 (June 2014) sits within the wider
planning context provided by Health Education England (HEE)s Mandate (2014) and Business
Plan (2014) and the HESL Five Year Workforce Skills and Development Strategy published in
2013. In order to achieve the changes within this Delivery Plan a multi-professional approach to
assuring the quality of education commissioned is being taken.
1.10 Therefore this work has been undertaken as part of that approach to ensure that the multi-
professional practice placement environment that is so critical to all learners being prepared as
the safe, effective and compassionate clinicians of the future is fit for purpose across all
healthcare sectors and specialties.
2.0 Project Framework
2.1 Project Scope
2.1.1 The over-arching scope of this project was to work with the relevant stakeholders
across South London to develop a set of Standards for assuring the quality of practice
placements and an aligned multi-professional methodology to monitor and assure their
achievement.
2.1.2 Additional aims were to link the payment of the placement tariff to the successful
achievement of the Standards while bringing together the quality management
processes for both medical and non-medical education.
2.2 The set of quality Standards are to:
2.2.1 Ensure that learners receive a high quality learning experience;

2.2.2 Reflect the needs of academic curricula, professional bodies and the Local Education
Training Board (LETB);
2.2.3 Be linked, as far as is practicable, to similar Standards for other professional groups;
2.2.4 Be applicable to a range of different settings.
2.3 A process for monitoring and assuring the achievement of the Standards is to ensure:
2.3.1 A multi-professional approach;

2.3.2 The need for rigour with the need to minimise additional burden on staff;
2.3.3 Attention and effort is directed to where it is most needed;
2.3.4 Facilitation of the development of local quality improvement initiatives where required.
2.4 Developmental pilots of the monitoring process aimed to:
2.4.1 Test the relevance and measurability of the Standards;

2.4.2 Include representation from multiple professional groups;
2.4.3 Examine the applicability of the Standards in a range of settings where education and
training take place;
2.4.4 Examine the need to balance rigour with the need to minimise additional burden on
staff when taking into consideration other reporting that is currently undertaken;
2.4.5 Highlight recommendations for wider roll-out and any further development.
2.5 Environment
The project focused on the areas that learners can be placed to gain practical healthcare
experience during their training across all of the sectors and the specialties. In practice
placement settings, the learners are most frequently multi-professional pre-registration students
participating in a HEI award programme. In the context of this project this also applied to multi-
professional learners undertaking structured learning in a practice placement environment
including post-registration students, returnees to practice, and healthcare workers undertaking
a period of adaptation to allow registration with a professional regulatory body.
2.6 Timescales
Phase One: 7th November 2103 until 31st March 2014;
Phase Two: 1st April 2014 to 31st August 2014;
2.7 Project Lead and Responsible Officer
The Project Lead was Susan Aitkenhead, a senior nurse with an operational and clinical
background in a variety of health settings, and policy and research experience gained within
the Department of Health, Scottish Health Executive and a UK regulatory body. The
Responsible Officer for Health Education South London was Sean Farran, Associate Director of
Education and Quality. The project was hosted by the Department of Education, Training and
Development at Guys and St.Thomas NHS Foundation Trust on behalf of Heath Education
South London.
2.8 Governance
Phase One
2.8.1 Due to the initial short timeframe of the project and the significant amount of interest
that was found to be generated, it was decided that a steering group was not the best
model to use within the first phase of the project as it would not be possible to include
all those stakeholders who wished to be involved. The numbers were considered to be
too high to be manageable within a group setting.
2.8.1.2 Therefore a stakeholder event on the 20 th February 2014 enabled full

participation of all who wished to participate across all sectors and
professions.
2.8.2 The Project Lead met regularly with the responsible officer from HESL to update on the
project and ensure that the project was on time and meeting the requisite objectives.
Update papers were also regular agenda items on the Health Education South London
Multi-professional Quality Committee (HESL MPQC).
Phase Two
2.8.3 Following agreement that the project should move in to a second developmental phase
from April 2014; a Project Board was formed reporting to the HESL MPQC to provide
assurance that the project Assuring Quality in Practice Placements was meeting the
desired outcomes.
3.0 Alignment to the development of a HESL Quality Framework
3.1 Practice placements are acknowledged as being one of the most important aspects of a
learners educational preparation in healthcare. High quality placements help learners fully
experience and understand all components of care and ensure that they are able to provide
that care competently and compassionately.
3.2 Quality management for undergraduate healthcare professional courses and postgraduate
medical placements that represent the greatest part of HESLs commissions has developed
separately for historical and practical reasons. The purpose of quality management is to assure
HESL as the commissioner that providers are meeting the criteria and standards set within the
contracts it has placed (Hamilton-Fairley, 2014).
3.3 It is the responsibility of education, healthcare and social care providers to meet the standards
that are set for them and HESL have metrics in place that have been developed over the last
two to three years and are managed in an annual cycle - Figure Two:
3.4 The HESL objective of developing a multi-professional Quality Framework was aligned to the
final conclusion of this project. However, it was always clear that this project in both phases
focused on non-medical education practice placements, and the results of the pilots would help
inform the consideration of how that objective could be met. It was also articulated by HESL
that no one system would be imposed on another but that overlaps would be identified and best
practice aligned.
3.5 Ongoing discussion throughout the project facilitated the comparison and contrast of
challenges in aligning different professional systems, and also considering what was profession
specific in relation to regulatory requirements. Other systems and processes such as Quality
and Contract Performance Management (QCPM), and the Learning and Development
Agreement (LDA) were also considered in relation to streamlining and avoiding any potential
duplication.
3.6 Quality assurance of healthcare education remains the responsibility of the regulatory bodies
and meetings were held with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), Health and Care
Professions Council (HCPC) and the General Medical Council (GMC). These meetings were to
inform the regulators of the project, and check that there was no duplication or confusion in
relation to the aims of the project. There was also ongoing liaison with the regulators during the
project to ensure that there was no confusion as to practice or associated policy and their time
and assistance is acknowledged and appreciated.
4.0 Project Methodology: Phase ONE
4.1 A review of a varied range of documents relating to guidance and standards for practice-based
learning was undertaken at the commencement of the project. A list of documents can be found
in the References section of this report.
4.2 Meetings were held with a wide range of multi-professional and academic stakeholders across
a variety of sectors and organisations (Appendix). Stakeholders were asked what makes a
good quality practice placement, and how could that quality be effectively measured?
4.3 Information relating to existing quality standards for practice education or placements was also
requested from the professional colleges via email.
4.4 Meetings were held with some experienced practice educators in the work-place; and some
pre-registration nursing students also kindly volunteered their time and thoughts to help
consider what made a practice learning environment a high quality experience for them.
4.5 An abundance of helpful information was gathered from all of these meetings and was explored
to see where any similarities or themes existed; which then led to the drafting of the first set of
Standards.
4.5.1 The data was divided into groupings of what current assurance practices work well,
challenges and gaps, exemplar practices identified and suggestions put forward by
stakeholders.
4.6 Following the completion of this mapping exercise a first draft of Standards was produced.
These draft Standards were discussed with the HESL medical quality and commissioning team
to ensure alignment with standards already in use.
4.7 Additionally a very helpful teleconference was held with NHS Education for Scotland and
advice offered from their extensive work in this area.
4.8 A stakeholder event was then held on the 20 th February 2014 with around 50 people
representing a wide range of multi-professional and academic stakeholders from a variety of
sectors and organisations, alongside colleagues from other Local Education and Training
Boards (LETBs), regulators and professional college representatives. The aims of the day were
to:
Feedback on the draft Standards;

Further define as necessary;
Consider process and measurement;
Consider what might merit appropriate evidence.
4.9 Facilitated workshops examined the draft Standards and Indicators in detail and this was used
to further refine the Standards.
4.10 General themes and recommendations were found to be in relation to:
Ensuring accountability for non-medical education at executive level;

Ensuring strong communication across the professions;
Business planning should include education;
Capacity planning should include education;
One set of documentation should be used pan-London;
Avoiding duplication of any other quality management systems and processes;
Aligning best practice across the city.
4.11 Student representatives who attended particularly wanted to highlight:
The need for transparency when things go wrong;

Feedback of any actions taken to be given back to the student who raised them;
More support for students when raising concerns.
5.0 Project Methodology: Phase TWO
5.1 Following the event on the 20th February 2014 it was agreed that the project should progress
to Phase Two and further work on refining the Standards carried out to produce a version to be
used within the developmental pilot process.
5.2 A Project Board was formed to provide the Health Education South London Multi-Professional
Quality Committee (HESL MPQC) with assurance that the project Assuring Quality in Practice
Placements was meeting the desired outcomes.
5.3 Further work had been undertaken defining the text/language within the Standards following
the stakeholder event; and the following six Quality Standards were agreed for assessment by
the Project Board.
1. The organisational culture in supporting education;

2. Executive ownership of education;
3. Staff in place to effectively support education;
4. Physical support for education;
5. Standards of service;
6. Partnership working.
5.4 Indicators sat under each Standard and a variety of evidence could be submitted to
demonstrate that each had been successfully achieved.
5.5 It was agreed that the most effective way to accomplish this was to undertake testing within a
cohort of developmental pilot sites in June/July 2014 across a range of sectors and sizes of
organisations.
5.6 Following the pilot feedback the next steps were then agreed as being:
To further define the Standards and the aligned Indicators;
To undertake analysis of what is the best evidence to be submitted against these;
To undertake analysis of the test quality visit model;
To produce a report with the detailed methodology and recommendations;
To produce papers for publication to highlight the work.
5.7 It was also reiterated that the project was focusing on non-medical practice placements.
However from the start of this project an aim was to develop a set of Standards for assuring the
quality of practice placements with an aligned multi-professional methodology to monitor and
assure their achievement; and the results of this project will help inform the consideration of
how that objective can be met.
6.0 Assessment against the Standards the Non-Medical Approach
6.1 From the initiation of this project, the aim has been to develop a set of Standards for assuring
the quality of practice placements and an aligned multi-professional methodology to monitor
and assure their achievement.
6.1.1 The LETB undertakes a well established approach to quality visits on behalf of the
General Medical Council (Postgraduate Medical Quality Visits: Approaches,
Governance, Roles and Responsibilities, November 2013, Shared Services Health
Education London).
6.2 There has been no such delegation of non-medical responsibilities and the Nursing and
Midwifery Council (NMC) and Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) continue to
undertake their own assurances.
6.3 As part of this project, although any assessment should obviously be directly aligned to the
distinct professional requirements of the non-medical professions, it was agreed that testing out
some of the components of the medical quality assurance model could be considered as
helpful and would be valuable in the final alignment of the multi-professional methodology.
6.4 The model of the Trust Wide Review seeks to explore and assess the quality of postgraduate
medical education and training across the whole organisation at a high level and includes a
meeting between the visit team and a cross section of learners during the visit. In addition the
review helps identify where proactive support may be required. The review is also a
mechanism where Notable Practice is identified so that it can be shared amongst the wider
health economy in the capital. The Quality and Commissioning Team is charged with managing
the governance arrangements of the governance aspects related to the quality visits.
6.5 Therefore it was agreed that a test model was to be developed to facilitate a Trust Wide Review
by a non-medical test Visit Team to map against the evidence submitted against the draft
Quality Standards and cross referenced to the draft indicators sitting under each Standard.
Pilots were to be developmental in order to gain as much interactive feedback as possible from
sites.
6.6 Project Board Members agreed the following proposal of the makeup of a non-medical test Visit
Team:
Lead Visitor: Director of Nursing (external to the Trust)

External Clinician: Senior AHP and Nurse Consultant
Head of School: Dean of Non-Medical School (external to patch)
Lay members
Learner representation: from relevant groups being visited
Members of the Quality and Commissioning Team (including a Scribe)
6.7 The visits were not meant to be a formal inspection but were clearly articulated as being:
To identify and highlight excellent standards of practice;

To further explore areas where concern might appear and then help with any required
improvement.
6.8 It was agreed that the developmental pilot sites would commence the collection of evidence
against the draft Standards in May, with submission of data in June and subsequent quality
visits taking place in July. Following a reporting back joint meeting with the pilot site
representatives there was to be final refinement of the draft Standards incorporating the
recommendations coming from the pilot results. The final objective was to then help steer the
work into HESL business as usual quality assurance processes in relation to implementation
and ongoing evaluation.
6.9 It was also agreed that the pilot sites would receive some formal written feedback as to the
findings of the visit to ensure it was a productive two-way process.
7.0 The Developmental Pilot Sites
The following organisations were proposed and agreed as developmental pilot sites:
7.1 The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (incorporating Sutton and Merton Community
Services):
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (RM) is an internationally renowned cancer centre
specialising in cancer diagnosis, treatment, research and education with two acute hospitals,
one in Chelsea, London, and another in Sutton, Surrey. Additionally in Surrey, there is a
Medical Day Care Unit based in Kingston. A formal partnership with the Institute of Cancer
Research makes the RM the largest and most comprehensive cancer centre in Europe, with a
combined staff of 3,500.
Sutton and Merton Community Services is also a division of the RM and these community
services support patients in the community, improving patient pathways for a range of
conditions and clinical treatments. Community nursing provides nursing assessments, care and
treatment to housebound patients with a physical healthcare need within their local
communities, including the patients home or residential care settings. The adult nursing
services provide care in patients homes and in clinics, aiming to prevent patients being
admitted to hospital by managing their long-term condition. Specialist nursing services cover
continence, diabetes, heart failure, respiratory disease and tissue viability. Staff also work with
patients in the last year of their life to provide end-of-life choice and support.
Adult Therapy Services has a number of dieticians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists,

podiatrists and speech and language therapists who cover a wide range of services and clinical
conditions with an aim of increasing and maintaining patient independence through
rehabilitation.
Childrens services link into the wider health and social care economy and aim to assist
children and their families by providing access to services that meet their needs. A
comprehensive service is offered for all children and delivered in schools, clinics and childrens
centres.
7.2 Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice:
Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice (GBCH) services are available to anyone who is
over 18 and lives in the London Boroughs of Greenwich or Bexley. Following negotiation with
the relevant commissioner, they can also provide some services to people who live outside of
this area but who choose to receive their care from the hospice.
Patients with active, progressive and advanced disease may be eligible for hospice services.
This includes patients with malignant disease and non-malignant disease, for example (but not
limited to) Heart Failure, Dementia, Motor Neurone Disease, Parkinsons Disease, Multiple
Sclerosis, End Stage Renal Disease and COPD.
The hospice is the foremost provider of specialist palliative care to the London Boroughs of
Greenwich and Bexley and covers an area of 40 square miles and a population of over
500,000 and has areas of wealth and extreme deprivation.
Staff and volunteers care for adult patients with a wide variety of chronic and terminal
conditions; in 2103 over 2,500 patients and families were cared for. The Hospice provides the
following services:
In-Patient Care
Day Hospice Services
Specialist Palliative Care Community Services in Greenwich and Bexley Boroughs
Hospital Support Team at Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Greenwich Care Partnership
Rehabilitation
Lymphoedema Treatment and Care
Psychological, Spiritual and Social Care
Education and Care Homes Support
There has been significant growth in the hospice services over the last three years and hospice
delivery has moved from a service which focuses on care delivery in a building, to one which
provides care in whatever setting it is required; this includes care in individual
people's homes, care homes, hospital and at the hospice in Abbey Wood.
The Greenwich Care Partnership (GCP) was established to deliver an integrated end of life
care service to people in the Royal Borough of Greenwich. The service is designed to work
alongside and support established core services (GPs, district nurses, specialist nurses etc.) in
order to support the provision of high quality care for dying people. The GCP was
commissioned by NHS Greenwich as a partnership and is delivered by the Hospice as the
prime contractor with Marie Curie Cancer Care (MCCC) and Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust as
subcontractors.
7.3 Two acute hospitals were also approached and although initially interested; they later
articulated that they were unwilling or felt unable to participate. Following this gap Guy's and St
Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust kindly offered to ask for local feedback on the draft Standards
and to undertake a table-top exercise in relation to the evidence to be submitted against the
draft indicators.
7.4 It was proposed and agreed by the Project Board that the combination of the developmental
pilots above provided the project with a good mix of settings to help develop appropriate,
adaptable ways of undertaking the assessment of the draft Standards in organisations of varied
sizes and structures.
8.0 Testing of the Standards in the Developmental Pilot Sites
8.1 The two sites undertaking the whole test quality assessment process submitted their data in
the second week of June 2014. It was very clear that although there was enthusiasm and
support for the project, there are were also several challenges.
Sites found the submission deadlines a struggle, so extensions of these dates were provided;
The process of submitting large files as evidence was also initially unclear and without the
provision of an electronic portal, encrypted memory sticks had to be used;
The challenge of identifying staff to attend the test quality visit sessions required much earlier
notification and planning and cognisance of diary restrictions particularly around clinical
commitments.
8.2 The test visit teams comprised of:
ROLE 7th July 21st July 22nd July

HESL Lead Sean Farran, Sean Farran, Associate Sean Farran, Associate Director of
Associate Director of Education and Education and Quality HESL
Director of Quality HESL
Education and
Quality HESL
Darzi Education
Fellow Katie White, Darzi Fellow Katie White, Darzi Fellow
Julie Murray, Senior Nurse,
Office of the Chief Nurse
DoN or Deputy GSTT
Emma Jones (Scribe)
Michelle Turner (Scribe)
Emma Jones Frances Wellburn, Quality Emma Jones (Scribe)
(Scribe) and Patient Safety Manager, Michelle Turner (Scribe)
Ian Bateman Pan-London Quality and Frances Wellburn, Quality and Patient
(Head of Pan- Regulation Safety Manager, Pan-London Quality
Pan-London London Quality Josie Turner, Quality and and Regulation
Quality & and Regulation) Visits Manager, Pan-London Emma Tromp, Quality and
Regulation Unit Susan Quality and Regulation Performance Manager, Pan-London
& Project Lead Aitkenhead Susan Aitkenhead (Project Quality and Regulation
observation (Project Lead) Lead) Susan Aitkenhead (Project Lead)
Learner rep: Moya Kirmond, Moya Kirmond, Student
nursing Student Nurse Nurse Moya Kirmond, Student Nurse
Learner rep: Frances Danylec, Student
AHP OT Frances Danylec, Student OT
Lay Rep Tony Pearson Tony Pearson
Expert Friederike Stenning, Lead Friederike Stenning, Lead
Clinician: AHP Physiotherapist Physiotherapist
Expert Clinician Anita Volkert,
AHP Senior OT
Expert Ann Muls,
Clinician: Nurse Roisin Fitzsimons, Nurse
nursing Consultant Consultant Roisin Fitzsimons, Nurse Consultant
Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice requested a smaller visit team due to the
size of the organisation and in recognition of the nature of the care that they provide
not being affected by a large number of people visiting. The visit was only scheduled
for an afternoon again due to the size of the organisation;
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust was split over two days to address the
hospital services and the generic community services separately.
8.3 Many exemplar practices were found during the test visits, some of which had not been
recognised by the organisations themselves as they had become business as usual within the
organisation. Staff were very pleased to have their work recognised as exemplar practice and
the profile raised.
8.4 Some areas requiring improvement were also recognised; the majority of which had also been
picked up on self assessment when the organisation was collating the data; and the
organisations agreed that this was also helpful in both the identification and the opportunity to
talk though ideas with the LETB.
8.5 It had been agreed that the pilot sites would receive some formal feedback as to the findings of
the visit to ensure it was a productive two-way process; and both organisations stated that they
would also be developing local action plans post test visit.
9.0 Data and Intelligence from the Developmental Pilot Sites
Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice
9.1 Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice (GBCH) submitted a variety of evidence against
the draft Standards document which was then assessed by the Pan-London Quality and
Regulation Unit to determine how the evidence provided by the placement provider met the
various indicators. All evidence provided for the six draft Standards were reviewed by two
members of the Quality team. Findings were discussed and a summary drawn up from the
combined assessment. The summaries were reviewed by the senior team members to draw
out any areas to be explored as part of the visit. Overall the information and evidence provided
for the draft Standards were found to be of good quality; as expected within the developmental
methodology, some areas aligned better than others. Some areas were also identified in
relation to exemplar practice and for further discussion when the test quality visit took place.
9.2 GBCH was thanked for their participation in the project, and it was made clear at the start of the
visit that there were no concerns at all identified about the standard of education and training
that was being delivered. The approach to the visit was described as being one of a critical
friend as well as deriving feedback from the site as to the draft Standards and visit
methodology.
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
9.3 The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (RM) also submitted a large variety of evidence
against the draft Standards document which was then assessed by the Pan-London Quality
and Regulation Unit to determine how the evidence provided by the placement provider met the
various indicators. All evidence provided for the six draft Standards were reviewed by two
members of the Quality team. Findings were discussed and a summary drawn up from the
combined assessment. The summaries were reviewed by the senior team members to draw
out any areas to be explored as part of the visit. Again the information and evidence provided
for the draft Standards were found to be of a very good quality; and again as expected within
the developmental methodology, some areas aligned better than others. Some areas were also
identified in relation to exemplar practice and for further discussion when the test quality visit
took place.
9.4 The RM was thanked for their participation in the project, and it was made clear at the start of
the visit that there were no concerns at all identified about the standard of education and
training that was being delivered.
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
9.5 This project was hosted by the Department of Education, Training and Development at Guys
and St.Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) on behalf of Heath Education South London
and this added significantly to the learning in a number of ways.
9.6 Both formal and informal discussions took place with members of the GSTT education and
training team as the Standards were drafted; particularly valuable was the input from
colleagues working within Placement Development. This provided a useful insight in to the
successes and challenges of working with both learners and staff in the practice education
environment.
9.7 An interactive session with a large number of nursing students was facilitated locally and
around fifty responses were received which further helped with the refining of the draft
Standards responding to the questions:
What makes a good placement experience?

How quickly do you know whether a placement is good and why?
What strategies can we put in place to improve placement experiences?
Can you think of any ways that make it easier for students to provide feedback in a
safe and timely manner?
9.8 A tabletop exercise was also facilitated and senior GSTT staff worked through the draft
Standards and commented on various components.
10.0 Feedback from the Developmental Pilot Sites
10.1 Opportunities for feedback from the developmental pilot sites were provided at several times
during the project timeline. Representatives from the pilot sites attended Project Board
meetings and fed back on the process. During the test quality visit, site representatives were
asked to comment and a formal meeting was also held on the 24 th July 2014 to specifically
comment on:
Positives;
Data interpretation and collation;
Test quality visit;
Any other feedback and suggestions;
10.2 A key component of testing the project methodology was in the test quality visit. A range of
members made up the test visitors, and at the end of the test quality visits, the visitors were
also asked on their thoughts on the process and their comments are also incorporated below.
Positives
10.3 It was reported that the draft Standards themselves were found to be focused and clear and
enabled pilot sites to question themselves about their own processes. It was felt that they
helped sites identify areas that needed improvement and that the process had raised the profile
throughout the organisation of the work that goes into both non-medical education and practice
placements. The highlighting of non-medical education was particularly welcomed at executive
and Board level and this process was felt to be reinforced via Standards One and Two
Organisational Culture and Executive Ownership.
10.4 Pilot sites fed back that they were nervous prior to the test visit but that the visiting team did a
good job of making them feel comfortable during the visit yet maintaining the seriousness of the
purpose; and the smaller organisation felt that the numbers of visitors was proportionate to the
size of the organisation.
10.5 Sites felt that it helped them think about what should be put in internal education reports
regarding practice placements.
10.6 Sites considered that involving so many staff in the visit gave them the recognition for the work
they undertake with learners and allowed them to meet colleagues with similar roles. The
innovation session of the visit also allowed staff to share the good work they do.
10.7 Another positive of the process was highlighted as being improved working with the LETB as
the visiting team was able to advise the pilot sites of initiatives, funding possibilities and
processes that they felt they may not have known about otherwise.
10.8 One considerable plus was flagged up in the bringing together of a range of professionals who
contribute to the learner experience. Sites felt that they had lots to learn from each other and
opportunities for making the learner experience truly multi professional had emerged.
Data interpretation and collation
10.9 Feedback flagged up that the work involved in the gathering of the evidence, cataloguing of the
data and the coordination of the visit was substantial involving several weeks of time and
significant contributions from many staff. All sites requested and were given extensions of time
which were felt to be crucial.
10.10 The collation process was found to be somewhat anxiety-making, but the sites recognised that
any review, no matter how it is presented will create this as they all wanted to do their best and
show their organisations in the best light possible.
10.11 Sites highlighted that deciding how much evidence to send was difficult; and that they could
easily have sent twice as much data; questions also arose as to whether data was to be
submitted via a ward/unit, department or directorate. Visitors suggested a maximum of two to
three pieces of key evidence should be submitted for each indicator.
10.11.1 Questions also arose around confidential data and if this should be redacted, such as
financial information; and it was flagged up that there was considerable discussion
about some pieces of data.
10.12 There was significant discussion about whether it was useful to have a list of suggested
examples of evidence or not. It was agreed that a pre-meet with a LETB representative to go
through the indicators and discuss what evidence may be meaningful for each organisation
would be less prescriptive and a better approach. A similar meeting had taken place with the
Project Lead and Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice and this had been recognised as
helpful.
10.13 Sites reported that at the end of the process that having a good understanding of the draft
Standards they were now in a much better position to collect the data on an ongoing basis
which would make the evidence collection easier in the long term if it was required.
10.14 It was highlighted that the actual submission was tricky due to the amount of data and that a
dedicated IT portal or a Drop-box or similar model would be helpful.
Test quality visit
10.15 It was felt that the clinical time devoted to the visit was significant if added together. Some staff
also came in from leave and after night shifts because they felt so strongly about their role with
learners and wanted to demonstrate to the visit team their work and experience.
10.16 There was felt to be some repetition at the RM as the community and hospital divisions are part
of the same organisation and share many aspects of the draft Standards, notably executive
ownership and that the visit duration of two days was a bit of an over-kill.
10.17 The test visit was made more challenging by the scheduling of it in July when a significant
number of AHP students were on holiday and many HEI colleagues were also on leave.
10.18 Practicalities such as sourcing enough rooms for the visit sessions were challenging, although
the notice period given to set this up was felt to be just enough time.
10.19 It was suggested that a template to help each organisation set out where education sits within
their structure and some background would be a helpful starting point; particularly to distinguish
potential differences between small and large organisations.
10.20 It was reiterated that although it was reaffirmed several times that the purpose to the visit was
as a critical friend that the organisations still felt like it was an inspection.
Any other feedback and suggestions
10.21 One of the sites found that writing a narrative to the draft Standards helpful to cover the breadth
of what was being submitted in case there was not any evidence. A short report format was
suggested to help provide additional information and to encourage organisations to identify for
themselves areas for improvement.
10.22 It was felt that some of the examples of evidence given were very broad and that these could
be left out or made more focused; in particular the learning culture and staff access to
education evidence could be further drawn out at the visit.
10.23 Some of the questions about numbers of students during the test visit were found to be difficult
to answer as information was not available in that format. A small template for some of the
numbers with instructions was proposed as being helpful.
10.24 Another suggestion was that focusing the evidence on the draft Standards as they relate
specifically to practice placements and limiting the amount of evidence as mentioned
previously to two or three key pieces might help to make the volume of evidence more
manageable.
10.25 In relation to student feedback, a suggestion to collect via a survey monkey was felt to
encourage a more candid comment and provide better quality data in a more transparent and
confidential manner. It was also proposed that external partners may also find this a more
acceptable way of contributing.
10.26 It was felt that the feedback session at the end of the visit was valuable but that the
organisations needed more time or opportunity to respond and debate any issues that were
being discussed; and additionally that if any concerns were identified before the visit that the
organisation should be informed to allow them to investigate locally.
10.27 It was suggested that a generic Education Leads Forum would be an ongoing opportunity to
build on this work.
10.28 It was proposed that the work that makes up Quality and Contract Performance Management
(QCPM) could incorporate some of the test visit methodology and combined would streamline
and strengthen some of the processes.
11.0 Further Refinement of the Standards
Following the feedback from the developmental pilot work; a few further refinements were made to the
draft Standards principally in relation to language and conciseness (Figure Three):
Health Education South London: Standards for Assuring Quality in Practice Placements
STANDARD ONE: The organisational culture in supporting education
The organisation aligns its values, strategy and resources to demonstrate how it values its role as an education setting in
helping learners in training meet the relevant curriculum requirements; while encouraging and supporting individual, team and
professional responsibility in delivering high quality learning environments and training opportunities.
Indicators:
1. A learning culture has been created and invested in across the provider, enabling all staff to consider education as an
integral component of their role.
2. Inter-professional learning opportunities aligned to the patient journey are promoted.
3. There is a commitment and time investment to support continuous professional development and lifelong learning of
all staff.
4. Learners are supported to provide contemporaneous and candid feedback on the placement experience via a safe
and supportive system including a process for ensuring that feedback is given to the learner on actions taken as a
result.
5. There are transparent and collaborative quality improvement processes in place to align best education practice
across the organisation.
STANDARD TWO: Executive ownership of practice education
The organisation provides effective senior leadership and direction demonstrating a clear commitment and accountability to the
delivery of high quality education.
Indicators:
1. An accessible and up to date education strategy, including a budget, is reported and monitored regularly at Board
level. The strategy explains the major responsibilities, goals and quality assurance responsibilities in relation to
inter-professional health education.
2. The organisation has a named executive director with accountability for inter-professional education, with parity to
a Dean of Faculty.
3. All business planning and service development processes include consideration and reporting of the impact of
service change on education.
4. The Board receives regular updates on the quality oversight of all areas of education with risks clearly identified.
STANDARD THREE: Staff in place to effectively support education
The organisation values staff that mentor, supervise and educate; ensuring there is appropriate workforce and capacity
planning, recruitment, and, training and development opportunities to enable those staff to successfully undertake the
responsibilities required in this role.
Indicators:
1. Staffing levels allow the practice placement environment to be properly resourced with an appropriate ratio of
professionally prepared staff to learners, working collaboratively with the relevant link staff from education institutions.
2. All educational supervisors are professionally prepared, competent, up-to-date and fully committed to their role in
supporting, teaching and inspiring learners.
3. Opportunities are provided for on-going professional development for educational supervisors and other staff
responsible for education and support.
4. Local leaders in individual practice settings value the opportunity to be hosting a learning environment.
5. All staff within the placement environment, whether professionally qualified or not are committed to helping support,
teach and inspire learners when they are learning alongside them in the delivery of patient care.
STANDARD FOUR: Physical support for education
The organisation has resources and facilities to facilitate an encouraging learning environment for learners.
Indicators:
1. Information technology is used to support the delivery of health education by enabling learners to access up-to-date
placement information and advice. A range of learning opportunities is available including library facilities and
evidence supporting practice.
2. Adequate time and resources are available to facilitate effective local inductions for learners.
3. Learners are able to access and use electronic patient applications such as EPR to support safe and effective patient
care across sectors.
4. Learners have timely and relevant access to clinical areas and appropriate equipment.
STANDARD FIVE: Standards of service
The organisation has robust governance structures and processes in place to ensure a safe and effective physical and
professional environment for learners.
Indicators:
1. Professional staff have current active registration with the relevant regulatory body and work to their professional
codes of conduct and standards, particularly in relation to professional accountability, transparency, candour and a
duty of care to patients.
2. The service which hosts practice placements has been approved as relevant by regulators, professional bodies and
commissioners and any changes requested by those bodies are addressed swiftly.
3. All staff understand local service responsibilities such as maintaining a safe working environment.
4. The Board receives the results of all internal and external monitoring, surveys and inspections and ensures that action
is taken to resolve any issues identified.
5. Planning for service activity and change includes systematic consideration of any impact on the delivery of education.
STANDARD SIX: Partnership Working
The organisation has effective structures and processes in place to promote and implement strong partnership arrangements,
such as service planning, the sharing of information and quality improvement activities.
Indicators:
1. There is evidence of key partnership working across organisations, professions and departments in support of quality
health education.
2. There is a formal joined up approach between practice and education to the preparation and allocation of practice
placements.
3. Staff and working practices in placements help learners understand the context of care delivery in a wide variety of
roles, sectors and specialties.
4. An identified senior staff member within the provider is responsible for formal liaison with the relevant education
institution, including agreement of cross-organisational policies and processes.
5. Robust systems are in place for raising and addressing any concerns about the placement, with clearly identified
processes and systems of communication between the education institution, the provider and the learner.
12.0 Recommendations
To complement the Standards and ensure that the different size of organisations is taken into account
the following recommendations are also made below. It is recommended that:
12.1 The testing of different methodologies should continue in relation to reducing the administrative
burden for organisations, and reducing the analytical burden for LETBs. However the positive
components of the project methodology that were fed back as part of the developmental pilot
site work should be maintained.
12.2 There should be consideration of bringing together the quality assurance processes of both
medical and non-medical education by the sharing of resources and intelligence as different
parts of a single process over time.
12.3 There should be consideration of the streamlining of other monitoring processes alongside this
assessment such as QCPM and the LDA to avoid any potential duplication, particularly in
relation to the same group of stakeholders being asked the same questions but by different
approaches.
12.4 The template for submission has additional sections for the organisation to set out the following
information:
A brief explanation of the organisation;

An overview of where education sits within the organisation;
Exemplar practice examples to be highlighted;
Any areas that organisations have identified for improvement;
Total amount of education funding awarded to organisation to allow the organisation to
clearly demonstrate the link to spending and activity.
12.5 Once the final methodology is agreed accompanying guidance for providers is published
explaining the process of assessment against the Standards; including what might be seen as
examples of helpful evidence.
12.6 The process should begin with an informal meeting with a relevant member of LETB staff and
an organisation to discuss the indicators and evidence and the amount that may be meaningful
for the organisation to submit in relation to their size and the numbers of students hosted.
12.7 If a significant amount of data submission forms part of the final methodology, a secure IT
portal or Drop-box model is made available for organisations to submit their data.
12.8 All London LETBs should work in partnership to align the methodology, particularly where
education commissions cross boundaries.
12.9 There should be ongoing liaison with the national professional regulatory bodies to continue to
consider where standards overlap and the potential for joint working.
13.0 Next Steps
13.1 The London LETBs will work in partnership to align the methodology due to the frequency of
education commissions crossing boundaries across the capital. This is to further test out the
recommendations and ensure that the key learning from the project, particularly around making
the process less onerous, is strengthened. A pan-London steering group is to be formed to
progress this work formally.
13.2 Health Education Kent, Surrey and Sussex (HE KSS) LETB is also using the HESL Standards
plus an additional Standard on Patient Safety as a multi-professional Quality Improvement
Tool (QIT). HE KSS has aligned a numerical level of concern to the QIT as follows:
0 = No concern
1 = No concern as area is already being addressed, but improvement is advised
2 = Slight concern, improvement required before next review
3 = Concern to be addressed mandatory
4 = Serious concern, to be addressed immediately
13.3 The learning from the HE KSS approach will be considered.
13.4 It should also be recognised that a major review of nurse education and training in England has
recently commenced to explore whether the current education and training of nurses and care
assistants will be fit for purpose to deliver high quality care over the next 10-15 years. The
Shape of Caring Review is calling for examples around eight themes, one of which is assuring
high quality practice learning environments which support the development of the future
workforce. It is expected that this work will form part of the evidence.
13.5 Following a meeting with the Nursing and Midwifery Council, it has also been agreed to explore
some joint working to enhance the sharing of intelligence and to reduce the risk of duplication.
14.0 References
Berwick Review (2013) A promise to learn a commitment to act; improving the safety of
patients in England;
Cavendish Review (2013) An Independent Review into Healthcare Assistants and Support
Workers in the NHS and social care settings
Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (2014) Practice Education information, support and
guidance, www.csp.org.uk
Clwyd P and T Hart (2013) A review of the NHS Hospitals Complaint System: Putting Patients
back in the Picture;
Collins J (2010) Foundation for Excellence: An Evaluation of the Foundation Programme
Department of Health (2008) A High Quality Workforce
Department of Health (2012) Liberating the NHS: Developing the Healthcare Workforce: from
Design to Delivery
Department of Health (2013) Hard Truths: the Journey to Putting Patients First
Department of Health (2013) The Education Outcomes Framework
Department of Health (2014) Delivering high quality, effective, compassionate care: Developing
the right people with the right skills and the right values a mandate from the government to
Health Education England: April 2014 to March 2015
Department of Health (2014) Education and Training Tariffs Tariff guidance for 2014-15
European Federation of the Associations of Dietitians (2010) European Practice Placement
Standards for Dietetics
Francis R (2013) Report of the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Enquiry Final
Report
General Medical Council (2009) Clinical Placements for medical students
General Medical Council (2009) Tomorrows Doctors
General Medical Council (2010) Quality Improvement Framework for Undergraduate and
Postgraduate Medical Education and Training in the UK
General Medical Council (2010) The State of Basic Medical Education: Reviewing quality
assurance and regulation
General Medical Council (2011) The Trainee Doctor, Foundation and Specialty, including GP
training
General Medical Council (2013) Quality Assurance and approval of the training environment
General Medical Council (June 2013) National Training Survey 2013
Hamilton-Fairley D (2014) Developing Quality Management for HESL Multi-Professional
Quality Committee 05 February meeting;
Health and Care Professions Council (2012) An introduction to our education processes
Health and Care Professions Council (2012) Standards of Education and Training
Health and Care Professions Council (2012) Supplementary information for education
providers Annual Monitoring
Health and Care Professions Council (2013) Frequently asked questions practice placement
seminars
Health Education England (2014) HEE Business Plan 2014/15
Health Education London Region Shared Services (2013) Postgraduate Medical Quality Visits:
Approaches, Governance, Roles and Responsibilities
Health Education South London (2013) Workforce Skills and Development Strategy 2013/14
2017/18
Health Education South London (2014) Health Education South London Delivery Plan 2014/15
Jokelainen M, Turunen H, Tossavainen K, Jamookeeah D and Coco K (2011) A systematic
review of mentoring nursing students in clinical placements, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20(19-
20):2854-67
Keogh B (2013) Review into the quality of care and treatment provided by 14 hospital trusts in
England: overview report
Levett-Jones T, Fahy K, Parsons K and Mitchell A (2006) Enhancing nursing students clinical
placement experiences: A quality improvement project, Contemporary Nurse, Vol 23, 1, 58-71
Murray SC and Williamson GR (2009) Managing capacity issues in clinical placements for pre-
registration nurses, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18(22):3146-54
NHS Education for Scotland (2008) Quality Standards for Practice
NHS Education for Scotland (2010) Enhancing the Quality of AHP Practice Education
Nursing and Midwifery Council (2001) The Nursing and Midwifery Order
Nursing and Midwifery Council (2008) The Code Standards of conduct, performance and ethics
for nurses and midwives
Nursing and Midwifery Council (2008) The Standards to Support Learning and Assessment in
Practice
Nursing and Midwifery Council (2010) Good health and good character: Guidance for approved
education institutions
Nursing and Midwifery Council (2012) The NMC Midwives Rules and Standards
Nursing and Midwifery Council (2013) Annexe One Requirements of approved education
institutions
Nursing and Midwifery Council (2013) Annexe Two Assuring the Safety and Effectiveness of
Practice Learning
Nursing and Midwifery Council (2013) Annexe Three Responding to concerns within nursing
and midwifery education and supervision of midwives
Nursing and Midwifery Council (2013) The Quality assurance framework: For nursing and
midwifery education and local supervising authorities for midwifery
Royal College of General Practitioners (2014) Guidance for Deaneries/LETBs on the
Standards for GP Speciality Training
Royal College of Nursing (2006) Helping students get the best from their practice placements:
A Royal College of Nursing toolkit
Stevens C, Clark C, Young A, Thomas K and Hassell D (2009) Developing activities to help
students achieve learning outcomes in practice placements, Nursing Times June 2-8;105 (21):
14-15
Temple J (2010) Time for Training A review of the impact of the European Working Time
Directive on the quality of training
The British Association of Occupational Therapists (2009) Guidance on Accreditation of
Practice Placement Educators Scheme - APPLE
The University of Greenwich (2008) Feedback Making it Work for Me
The University of Nottingham (2010) The MINT Project Midwives in Teaching An evaluation of
whether Midwife Teachers bring a unique contribution particularly in the context of outcomes
for women and their families Final report to the Nursing and Midwifery Council
15.0 Glossary
AEI Approved Education Institution
AHP Allied Health Professional
BAOT British Association of Occupational Therapists
COT College of Occupational Therapists
CPD Continuing Professional Development
CPI Contract Performance Indicator
CPPD Continuing Personal and Professional Development
CQC Care Quality Commission
CSP Chartered Society of Physiotherapists
DH Department of Health
DME Director of Medical Education
DON Director of Nursing
EOF Educations Outcome Framework the framework sets the
outcomes that the Secretary of State expects to be achieved
from the reformed education and training system.
FEC Further Education College
FEI Further Education Institution
Francis Report Public enquiry into Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust
GBCH Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice
GCP Greenwich Care Partnership
GMC General Medical Council
GSTT Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
HCPC Health and Care Professions Council
HEE Health Education England
HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England
HEI Higher Education Institution
HENCEL Health Education North Central and East London
HENWL Health Education North West London
HESL Health Education South London
HESL MPQC Health Education South London Multi-professional Quality
Committee
KIS Key Information Sets
LDA Learning and Development Agreement
Learner
Multi-professional pre-registration students participating in a
Higher Education Institution award programme. In the context
of this project this also applied to multi-professional learners
undertaking structured learning in a practice placement
environment including post-registration students, returnees to
practice, and healthcare workers undertaking a period of
adaptation to allow registration with a professional regulatory
body.
LEP
Lead Education Provider
LETB Local Education and Training Board

LFG Local Faculty Group
LME Lead Midwife for Education
LP Lead Provider
LSA Local Supervising Authority
LSAMO Local Supervising Authority Midwifery Officer
MADEL Medicine and Dental Education Levy
MPET Multi Professional Education and Training levy
NHSEL NHS England London Region
NMC Nursing and Midwifery Council
NMET Non Medical Education Training
Non-medical education The number of student/training places invested in/planned to
commissions deliver newly qualified non-medical staff to contribute to the
forecast workforce supply.
NSS National Student Survey
PGMDE Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education
Q and C Team Quality and Commissioning Team
QA Quality Assurance
QCPM Quality and Contract Performance Management
QIF Quality Improvement Framework
QM Quality Management
RAG Red/Amber/Green rating
RCM Royal College of Midwives
RCN Royal College of Nursing
RM The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
SCPHN Specialist Community Public Health Nursing Part 3 of the
professional Nursing and Midwifery Council Register
SET Standards of Education and Training
SHA Strategic Health Authority
SIFT Service Increment for Teaching
TLD Trust Liaison Dean
TPD Training Provider Director
Workforce supply The total number of staff available, usually of a given group,
(or forecast to be available) to deliver a given (level of) service
at a given point in time.
16.0 Appendix
Stakeholders, Project Board Members (PBM) and Acknowledgements
Alex West-Oram, Programme Leader, the Royal Marsden School

Alexandra Evans, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Alison Corbett, Macmillan CNS in Neuro-Oncology, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Alison Robertson, Director of Nursing, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust
Amanda Price, Head of Education Programmes, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust PBM
Anand Mehta, Trust Liaison Dean, Health Education South London
Andrew Frankel, Postgraduate Dean for Health Education South London
Angela Grainger Assistant Director of Nursing Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Angela Parry, Director of Clinical Education, King's College London Florence Nightingale School of
Nursing and Midwifery
Anita Volkert, Senior OT and Educator, College of Occupational Therapists
Ann Muls, Nurse Consultant, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Annabel Spires, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Anne Howers, Universal Children Service Manager, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Anne Trotter, Head of Education, Nursing and Midwifery Council
Anthony Bolland, Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice
Antonia Gannon, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Benjamin Potter, Education Manager, Health and Care Professionals Council
Bethany Fretwell, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Carol McCoskery, Head of Nursing Cardiovascular Services, Guys and St Thomas NSH Foundation
Trust
Carole Cobain-Patel, Lead Nurse Clinical Education, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Cathy Wilson, Head of the Royal Marsden School
Charlotte Hawken, Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice;
Christina Hickson, Associate Director Nursing Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
Colin Ramage, Placement Development Facilitator, Guys and St Thomas NSH Foundation Trust
Dawn Grant, Lead Nurse HCA Training, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Debbie Lindon-Taylor, Director of Nursing Community Services, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation
Trust
Deborah Harding, Senior Lecturer SaLT, Kingston University and St Georges University of London
Di Morgan, Assistant Director of Human Resources (Education and Development), St George's
Healthcare NHS Trust
Diana Hamilton-Fairley, Director of Education and Quality, Health Education South London PBM - Chair
Diane Cameron, Nursing Education and Development Lead, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
Diane Morgan, Assistant Director of Human Resources St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust
Eileen Bryant, Primary Care Nurse Adviser, NHS England
Eileen Sills, Chief Nurse, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
Eleanor Pinniger, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Ellen Tumelty, Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice
Emma Jones, Quality and Visits Officer, Health Education South London
Emma Tromp, Quality and Performance Manager, Health Education South London
Eva Pekrova: Practice Development Facilitator, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Fiona Poole, Student nurse (on behalf of colleagues), Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Frances Danylec, Occupational Therapy Student, Brunel University London
Frances Wellburn, Quality and Patient Safety Manager, Health Education South London
Friederike Stenning, Clinical Lead Physiotherapist in Elderly Rehabilitation, Kings College Hospital NHS
Foundation Trust
Gabrielle Blundell-Pound, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Geraldine Walters, Director of Nursing, Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Gill Heuchan, Assistant Director Professional Education Development, London Ambulance Service NHS
Trust
Heather Holder-Powell, Senior Teaching Fellow (Physiotherapy Clinical Education), Kings College
London
Heather Wood: Placement Development Facilitator, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Helen Foulser, Ward Sister, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Helen Graham, Head of Quality, Teaching and Learning Co-ordinator for the School of Medicine Kings
College London University
Helen Massil, Trust Liaison Dean, Health Education South London
Iain Beith, Associate Dean for practice Education/Head of School Rehabilitation, St Georges University
of London/Kingston University PBM
Ian Bateman, Head of Pan-London Quality and Regulation Unit, Health Education South London PBM
James Cain, Health Education North West London
Jane Clegg, Director of Nursing, NHS England South London
Jane Frisby, Lecturer, Interprofessional Education Division of Medical Education Kings College Hospital
NHS Foundation Trust
Jane Lundy, Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice
Jean Wang, NHS National Medical Directors Clinical Fellow Scheme, Faculty of Medical Leadership
and Management
Jen Watson, Director of Nursing Cancer Services, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Jennifer Duthie, Education Adviser, Chartered Society of Physiotherapy
Joady Mitchell, Principal Lecturer, London South Bank University
John Boyle, Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice
Josie Turner, Programme Manager, Health Education South London PBM
Judith Ellis, Executive Dean of the Faculty of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University
Julie Goldie, Head of Professional Support and Development St Georges
Julie Murray, Senior Nurse, Office of the Chief Nurse, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Julie Payne, University of Greenwich
Julie Simpkins, Lead Nurse for Professional Education, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust PBM
Karen Cleaver, Head of Department, Family Care and Mental Health University of Greenwich
Karen Elcock, Head of Programmes Pre-registration Nursing/Deputy Head of School Kingston
University and St Georges University of London
Karen Gibson, Health Education Kent, Surrey and Sussex
Kate Bazin, Teaching Fellow Preparation for Practice Academic, Department of Physiotherapy School of
Medicine Guy's Campus King's College London
Kate Gregory, General Medical Council , Joint Head of Education (Quality)
Kathryn Jones, Deputy Director of Education and Quality, Health Education North West London PBM
Kathryn Yates, Senior Lecturer, Kingston University and St Georges University of London
Kathy Wilson, Health Education North Central East London Nursing Project Officer
Katie Milward-Sproul, Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice
Katie White, Darzi Fellow: Nursing Education Health Education North Central and East London
Kerry Johnstone, Quality and Commissioning Manager (Medical and Dental), HESL;
Kieran Kelly, Quality and Performance Manager (Medical and Dental), HESL;
Laura Emson, Senior Commissioning Manager Shared Services, Non Medical Commissioning and
Quality Management - on behalf of Health Education North Central and East London, Health Education
North West London and Health Education South London;
Libby Chavez, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Linda Burke, Pro-Vice Chancellor, University of Greenwich PBM
Lisa Tapsell, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Liz Allibone, Lead Nurse Clinical Education, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust
Lottie Sharp, Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice;
Louise McNamara, Director of Nursing Private Patients, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Lynn Cheung, Student Placement Manager for AHP, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Lynne Hall, DEQ Clinical Advisor, Health Education England PBM
Lynne Hopwood, Associate Director Community Services, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Lynne Pacanowski, Head of Midwifery Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
Maaike Vandeweghe, Lead for Advancing Practice, Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice PBM
Maggie Gairdner, Divisional Director Community Services, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Maggie Grainger, Trust Head of Nursing Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust
Mags Jubb, ET&D Manager Clinical Education, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust PBM
Manisha Bhola: Project Officer, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Margaret Bidmead, Head of Physics and Radiotherapy Physics, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation
Trust
Maria Ahmed, OD Consultant, London Borough of Bexley
Maria Wright, Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice
Mary Coldwell, Student nurse (on behalf of colleagues), Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Mary Jane Cole, Senior lecturer physiotherapy, Kingston University and St Georges University of
London
Mary Malone, Programme Director Health Visiting, Kings College London
Mary OShea Director of HR and OD, Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare NHS Trust
Matt Zasada Senior Lecturer Physiotherapy Practice Education, St Georges University/Kingston
Michaela- Jane OConnor, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Michelle Lynne, Professional Adviser, Education Royal College of Midwives
Michelle Spruce, AHP Lead, London South Bank University
Michelle Turner, Quality and Visits Officer, Health Education South London
Mick Coughlan, Lecturer/Practitioner, the Royal Marsden School
Mike Sabin, Associate Director of Nursing and Midwifery, NHS Education for Scotland
Mo Carruthers, Matron, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Moira Ford - Lead for Business Development, Performance and Assurance, Your Healthcare
Moya Kirmond, Student Nurse, Kings College London PBM
Natalie Doble, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Nathaniel Hill, Health Education South London
Nazmir Begum, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Nicki Murtagh, Head of Therapies, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Nicole Akpan: Senior Administrator, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Paula Preston, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Penny Jones, Director of Care Services, Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice PBM
Peter Rolland, Head of Quality Health Education North Central East London
Rachel Brown: Placement Development Facilitator, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Rachel Conway, Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice
Roisin Fitzsimons, Nurse Consultant, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Rosie Pudner, Senior Lecturer, Kingston University and St Georges University of London
Ruth Russell, Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice
Sam Greenhouse, Assistant Director OD, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Samantha Portnoi, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Sarah Armstrong, Lead Radiographer for Professional Development, the Royal Marsden NHS
Foundation Trust
Sarah Connor, Head of Practice Development, Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Sarah Wright, Clinical Director for Therapies, Community Services, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation
Trust
Sean Farran, Associate Director of Education and Quality, Health Education South London PBM
Shelley Dolan, Chief Nurse, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Shirin Hosseinpour, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Siobhan Gregory, Director of Nursing, Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare NHS Trust
Stephanie Aiken, Education Adviser, Royal College of Nursing
Stuart Deaton, Final year BSc Physio course rep at St George's, and student rep on the Health
Education South London Membership Council.
Sue Boran, District Nursing Programme Director, London South Bank University
Sue Cressey, Practice Educator for Support Workers, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Sue Mullaney, Pro Dean Pre-Registration Education and Quality London South Bank University
Sue Robinson, Practice Educator/Placement Educator, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Susan Redward, Policy Manager, General Medical Council
Susan Strong, Academic Zone Lead, Kingston University and St Georges University of London
Teresa Marshall, Senior Lecturer, Kingston University and St Georges University of London
Theresa Wiseman, Strategic Lead for Health Service Research , the Royal Marsden NHS
Foundation Trust
Tony Pearson, Lay Representative, Health Education South London
Vicci Rule Student Nurse St Georges University of London/Kingston University
Victoria Adie, Sign-Off Mentor, the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Zoe Webb, Student Nurse Forum, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust
Thank you to other colleagues particularly those who attended the test quality visits and generously
gave up their time to talk about their excellent work.
[END]

Health Education South London Standards For Assuring Quality in Practice Placements Final Summary Report S Ait

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Health Education South London Standards For Assuring Quality in Practice Placements Final Summary Report S Ait

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Standards for Assuring Quality in Practice

Undertaken by Susan Aitkenhead on behalf of Health Education South London

Chapte Title Page

1 Background and Rationale 3

Data/intelligence gathered, including exemplar practices;

1.0 Background and Rationale

2.1 Project Scope

2.2 The set of quality Standards are to:

2.2.1 Ensure that learners receive a high quality learning experience;

2.3.1 A multi-professional approach;

2.4 Developmental pilots of the monitoring process aimed to:

2.4.1 Test the relevance and measurability of the Standards;

Phase One: 7th November 2103 until 31st March 2014;

2.7 Project Lead and Responsible Officer

2.8.1.2 Therefore a stakeholder event on the 20 th February 2014 enabled full

3.0 Alignment to the development of a HESL Quality Framework

Feedback on the draft Standards;

4.10 General themes and recommendations were found to be in relation to:

Ensuring accountability for non-medical education at executive level;

4.11 Student representatives who attended particularly wanted to highlight:

The need for transparency when things go wrong;

1. The organisational culture in supporting education;

To further define the Standards and the aligned Indicators;

6.0 Assessment against the Standards the Non-Medical Approach

Lead Visitor: Director of Nursing (external to the Trust)

To identify and highlight excellent standards of practice;

Adult Therapy Services has a number of dieticians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists,

7.2 Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice:

8.2 The test visit teams comprised of:

ROLE 7th July 21st July 22nd July

9.0 Data and Intelligence from the Developmental Pilot Sites

Greenwich and Bexley Community Hospice

The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust

Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

What makes a good placement experience?

10.0 Feedback from the Developmental Pilot Sites

Data interpretation and collation

Test quality visit

STANDARD ONE: The organisational culture in supporting education

STANDARD TWO: Executive ownership of practice education

STANDARD THREE: Staff in place to effectively support education

STANDARD FOUR: Physical support for education

STANDARD FIVE: Standards of service

STANDARD SIX: Partnership Working

A brief explanation of the organisation;

13.3 The learning from the HE KSS approach will be considered.

LETB Local Education and Training Board

Stakeholders, Project Board Members (PBM) and Acknowledgements

Alex West-Oram, Programme Leader, the Royal Marsden School

S-ar putea să vă placă și