Continuing professional development annual report - · PDF fileContinuing professional development annual report. Foreword 3 Introduction 4 Aboutthisdocument4 ... Graph7–Operatingdepartment

2008 – 09

Continuingprofessionaldevelopmentannual report

Foreword 3

Introduction 4

About this document 4

About us (the Health ProfessionsCouncil) 4

Our main functions 4

Continuing professional development 5

Background 5

Consultation 6

Professional Liaison Group 6

The standards 7

Amendment to standard five 7

Communicating our auditrequirements 8

Sample profiles 8

Publications 8

CPD talks 8

Audio-visual CPD presentation 9

Listening Events 9

Employer Events 10

Website 10

The CPD audit process 11

Registration and CPD 11

Selection 11

Deferral 11

Sample size 11

Assessing the profiles 12

Developing the audit process 12

Assessor appointments 12

Assessor training 12

Assessment days 12

Assessment decisions 13

Assessor feedback 13

Audit results 17

Key to tables and graphs 17

Chiropodists / podiatrists 18

Operating department practitioners 19

Orthoptists 20

Paramedics 21

Deferral 23

Overall audit summary 24

Audit selection maps 25

Conclusion 29

List of tables, graphs andfigures 30

Further information 31

Contents

Continuing professional development annual report 2008 – 09 3

I am delighted to present the Health ProfessionsCouncil’s first report on our standards forcontinuing professional development (CPD). Wehave produced this document to provide youwith information about how the standards wereagreed and implemented, and to share theresults of the first four professions to be audited.This will be followed by further reports onsubsequent audits.

In its early deliberations, the Council was inagreement that any new process for monitoringongoing CPD must be flexible, fair andappropriate for all the professions regulated byus. This was no small challenge, and as amember of the Professional Liaison Group whichundertook some of the work, I am well aware ofthe effort that went into this development.

As a Council, we were clear that the standardsshould not disadvantage any profession orgroup, and should be equally applicable tothose working in independent practice as inhealth, education or social care settings. Inaddition, the standards should promotereflective practice and a commitment tolifelong learning, both of which are recognisedas key attributes in maintaining high standardsof professional practice over time. For someprofessions, the requirement to write in areflective way about CPD activities was notwell received, but we believe that over time thebenefits of the flexible, reflective nature of ourCPD standards has been recognised.

Our aim is for these CPD standards, and theaudits that we carry out to ensure compliancewith them, to promote reflective practice andfoster a greater emphasis on the outcomes ofCPD activity.

I am grateful to all those who have beeninvolved in the development of the CPDstandards, the design and delivery of the auditprocess, and the dissemination work that hasallowed this innovative outcome-basedapproach to CPD to flourish.

Anna van der GaagChair

Foreword

About this document

We, the Health Professions Council (HPC),have written this document for registrants,professional bodies, other regulators and others– including members of the public and serviceusers –with an interest in our approach to CPD.It provides information and feedback from thefirst four CPD audits to take place. We will alsopublish the results of subsequent audits.

Throughout this document:

– ‘we’ refers to us, the Health ProfessionsCouncil;

– ‘you’ refers to a professional onour Register;

– ‘registrant’ refers to a professional on ourRegister; and

– ‘CPD’ refers to continuing professionaldevelopment.

People who might find this documentuseful are:

– a registrant who has been audited;

– a registrant who has not been auditedbut who wants to find out more aboutthe CPD audits;

– a student who wants to find out moreabout the CPD audits;

– a manager thinking about the CPDneeds of their team and how they canhelp them with their CPD by providingfeedback;

– a CPD coordinator, union representativeor a representative from a professionalbody who wants to support registrantswith their CPD;

– an employer of registrants who wants tofind out more about the results of theCPD audits;

– a person or organisation thinking aboutoffering CPD activities to registrants; or

– a member of the public, especiallysomeone who uses or has used theservices of HPC registrants.

About us(the Health Professions Council)

We are the Health Professions Council. We area regulator and our main aim is to protect thepublic. To do this, we keep a register ofprofessionals who meet our standards for theirtraining, professional skills, behaviour and health

We currently regulate 14 professions.

– Arts therapists

– Biomedical scientists

– Chiropodists / podiatrists

– Clinical scientists

– Dietitians

– Occupational therapists

– Operating department practitioners

– Orthoptists

– Paramedics

– Physiotherapists

– Practitioner psychologists

– Prosthetists / orthotists

– Radiographers

– Speech and language therapists

Our main functions

To protect the public, we:

– set standards for the education andtraining, professional skills, conduct,performance, ethics and health ofregistrants;

Introduction

Continuing professional development annual report 2008 – 094

– keep a register of professionals whomeet those standards;

– approve programmes whichprofessionals must complete before theycan register with us; and

– take action when registrants do not meetour standards.

Continuing professionaldevelopment

We define continuing professionaldevelopment (CPD) as:

“a range of learning activities through whichhealth professionals maintain and developthroughout their career to ensure that theyretain their capacity to practice safely,effectively and legally within their evolvingscope of practice.”’

This definition is taken from a report calledAllied health professions project:Demonstrating competence throughcontinuing professional development,published by the Department of Health in2003. You can download this at:

www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4071462.pdf

Although many of our registrants have alwaysundertaken CPD, it did not become a statutoryrequirement for registrants until July 2006.

In this document we provide a summary of thework undertaken to engage, inform andsupport registrants in the period before the firstround of CPD audits, which began in May2008. The section called ‘The CPD auditprocess’ contains detailed information on theaudit. We have also included references toother publications which are referred tothroughout the document and which providefurther information.

Background

The HPC was created by legislation called theHealth Professions Order 2001. Within thislegislation are provisions for the Council toestablish standards for CPD under article19(1). This gives the Council powers to deviseand implement new standards requiringregistrants to undertake CPD.

In 2003 we set up a Professional LiaisonGroup to look at how we would go aboutassessing the CPD activities of registrants. TheCouncil consulted widely on the proposals forthe standards for CPD and took account of thecomments that were made through writtenconsultation and via public meetings.

At the time, we recognised that many existingsystems for monitoring CPD relied upon an‘hours’ or ‘points’ (inputs) based approach.However, we also recognised that the qualityof CPD activity was in many instances moreimportant to maintaining high standards ofprofessional practice than the quantity ofCPD undertaken.

Many professionals emphasised to us thatformal didactic learning opportunities were notthe only means of keeping up-to-date. Thisapproach was key to maintaining publicreassurance that registered professionals werecontinuing to maintain high standards, as wasthe need to specify the perceived benefits toservice users in the standards themselves. Thestandards are therefore deliberately flexible, inthat they do not demand that a specificnumber of hours of CPD be undertaken. Theyare deliberately outcomes based, in that theyencourage registrants to be explicit about thebenefits of the CPD activity for themselves andservice users.


Introduction

Consultation

In 2004, we held a three-month consultationon our proposals for linking CPD withregistration. The consultation document wassent to all professionals registered with us, aswell as being available on our website. We held46 meetings in 22 locations throughout theUK. At each meeting, we presented theproposals and then provided an opportunity forfeedback. Over 6,500 individuals attended themeetings and over the course of theconsultation we received almost 1,500 writtenresponses. A summary of the responses to theconsultation was published on the website inJuly 2005.

Professional Liaison Group

In September 2005, another ProfessionalLiaison Group (PLG) was established to takethe work forward. The PLG was made up ofboth professional and lay HPC Councilmembers. Their work included preparingthe registrant guides to CPD, developingexample CPD profiles and beginning to designthe audit process.

In February 2006, the PLG members met withrepresentatives of the professional bodies ofthe professions we regulate to discuss thework and to invite the professional bodies toprovide sample profiles for their respectiveprofessions. These sample profiles were thenreviewed by members of the PLG forconsistency and conformity with the CPDstandards. In July 2006 the CPD standardsbecame part of the statutory requirement toremain registered with the HPC. From July2006 all registrants had to meet the CPDstandards. The first CPD audit began twoyears later, in July 2008.


Introduction

Our standards state that registrants must:

1. maintain a continuous, up-to-date andaccurate record of their CPD activities;

2. demonstrate that their CPD activities area mixture of learning activities relevant tocurrent or future practice;

3. seek to ensure that their CPD hascontributed to the quality of their practiceand service delivery;

4. seek to ensure that their CPD benefitsthe service user; and

5. present a written profile containingevidence of their CPD upon request.

Amendment to standard five

During the first round of audits we received asmall number of profiles in a strikingly similarformat. We investigated the matter andestablished that they had been produced onthe individuals’ behalf by a third party. Whilstthis was not in breach of the CPD standardsas they were written, it did not reflect thepurpose of the audit process which was toexamine a sample of profiles generated by theregistrants themselves.

In February 2009, we therefore consulted onamending standard 5. The majority of theresponses were in favour of the change and,after Council approval, the revised standardcame into force in June 2009.

The amended wording of standard 5 is:

“5. upon request, present a written profile(which must be their own work and supportedby evidence) explaining how they have met thestandards for CPD.”

Since making this change the issue ofregistrants using third parties to complete CPDprofiles does not appear to have continued toraise concerns.

The standards


Sample profiles

In 2005–06, we began working with professionalbodies to produce sample CPD profiles for ourwebsite. We have now published a total of 33profiles across 13 different professions and weare continuing to work on publishing more.

The sample profiles are examples of the CPDprofiles registrants might submit if they wereaudited, without the supporting evidence. Wehave published these profiles to give examplesof how registrants in different settings,undertaking different kinds of activities, couldshow how they meet our standards of CPD ifthey were selected for audit. We have alsofound that registrants often find it helpful to lookat profiles from outside of their own professionto compare different approaches to CPD.

The sample profiles are not intended to be thebest or only way of putting together a CPDprofile, but instead illustrate that there are avariety of different ways of meeting ourstandards. They also illustrate that there are avariety of different ways of structuring andwriting a CPD profile. For example, some ofthe sample profiles use almost the full 2,000word limit, whilst others use less than half ofthat but still comfortably meet the standards.

Publications

In May 2006, we published Your guide to ourstandards for continuing professionaldevelopment, which was mailed to allregistrants. We also published a more detailedguide to the standards and audit process calledContinuing professional development and yourregistration in July 2006 which has beenavailable on request and via our website. To datewe have distributed over 21,000 printed copies.

In preparation for the first round of audits inMay 2008 we published specific guidance forthose selected for audit called How tocomplete your continuing professionaldevelopment profile. This is sent to registrantsselected for audit.

At the same time we also produced paper-based and electronic CPD profile templates foruse by those selected for audit. This allowed forthe profiles to be either completed by hand orword processed. Using a standardised templategave registrants a clear format for producing theprofile and provided the assessors with anunderstanding of what to expect.

CPD talks

Shortly after the publication of the CPDstandards we saw registrant demand increasefor speakers at events, meetings andconferences. Initially these were responded toby HPC employees from the Policy andStandards Department, and a number of talkswere also given by HPC Council members. Toenable us to coordinate the communication ofthe CPD requirements to registrants wecreated the post of CPD CommunicationsManager in October 2007.

Since then, more than 13,000 registrants haveattended talks at over 200 locations across theUK given by the CPD CommunicationsManager. We took a proactive approach toorganising the talks using new and existingnetworks and advertising in the HPCe-newsletter HPC In Focus. All parts of theUK were visited for extended periods to allowfor as many talks as possible to be delivered.

Feedback from registrants who have attendedthese events has been positive. The opportunityto meet so many registrants and hear andaddress their concerns first hand has beeninvaluable to the CPD programme of work.

The two tables and graphs overleaf show thenumber of CPD talks delivered alongside thenumber of registrants in each of the fourcountries of the UK (as well as the ChannelIslands and the Isle of Man). You can see thatthe number of talks delivered in each region isroughly proportionate to the number ofregistrants in that area.

Communicating our audit requirements


Table 1 – CPD talks delivered

Territory CPD talks delivered

England 154

Scotland 20

Wales 12

Northern Ireland 8

Channel Islands 4

Isle of Man 2

Graph 1 – CPD talks delivered

Table 2 – Number of registrants in fourhome countries and the ChannelIslands and the Isle of Man

Territory Number of registrants

England 155,433

Scotland 18,545

Wales 10,260

Northern Ireland 6,194

Channel Islands 439

Isle of Man 249

Graph 2 – Number of registrants in fourhome countries and the ChannelIslands and the Isle of Man

Audio-visual CPD presentation

To allow us to reach more registrants in asustained and cost effective way we produced aversion of the CPD presentation in DVD format.This was initially sent to every chiropodist /podiatrist and operating department practitionerselected for audit. As a result of the positivefeedback on this initiative, the presentation wasplaced online in June 2009 and, to date, hashad more than 7,000 visitors.

Listening Events

Our ongoing programme of Listening Eventsacross the UK has also provided a usefulforum for sharing information on the CPDrequirements. We hold 16 events at eightlocations each year which are an opportunityfor registrants to discuss issues affecting them.Since 2006 we have included CPD in the‘break-out’ sessions at these events as anopportunity for questions and queries to beanswered. The topical nature of the CPDaudits has meant that those attending theListening Events have had an opportunity toaddress their concerns, reflected in thefeedback collated from the events.

Isle of Man

England

Channel IslandsNorthern Ireland

Wales

Scotland

Isle of ManEnglandChannel Islands

Northern Ireland

Wales

Scotland



Employer Events

We currently hold five of these events eachyear across the four home countries of the UK.These events are specifically targeted atmanagers and human resources professionalswho employ HPC registrants. The events aremade up of presentations and workshopslooking at key issues affecting registrants andemployers. As CPD is a statutory requirementwe have included workshops on the standards,audit process and profile preparation at eachof the events.

Website

Since July 2006 when the standards for CPDwere implemented we have developed andregularly updated the CPD pages of our websiteat www.hpc-uk.org. This has provided aconsistent and developing area for resourcesrelating to CPD for registrants. This area of thewebsite includes electronic versions of the CPDguides, sample profiles, a ‘frequently askedquestions’ section, and the CPD profile templatefor use when submitting a CPD profile.



Registration and CPD

Registrants must renew their HPC registrationevery two years and each profession has fixedrenewal dates. Each time a profession renewsits registration registrants are asked to sign aform to confirm that they continue to meet theHPC’s standards of conduct performance andethics, and the standards of proficiency fortheir profession. When the requirement toundertake CPD activities was confirmed in2006, registrants were also asked to confirmthat they were undertaking CPD activitieswhen they renewed their registration.

We took registration dates into account whendeciding when to audit professionals, and havetherefore linked CPD audits with registrationrenewal. For example, paramedics’ registrationrenewal forms were issued during the firstweek of June 2009, this was followed by CPDaudit notification within 10 working days. Thesubmission deadline for both renewal formsand CPD profiles was 31 August 2009.

Selection

We took the decision to audit a sample ofrandomly selected registrants, rather thanasking to see a CPD profile for every registrant.This decision was proportionate andappropriate given our assertion that registrantswere committed to their responsibility formeeting the standards of CPD and the majoritywere already undertaking CPD prior to theintroduction of the standards.

By auditing a sample of registrants rather thanall those registered with us, we have also beenable to manage costs and provide better valuefor money for registrants. If we were to audit allthose registered with us, the costs would beconsiderably higher and this cost would haveto be met by increased registration fees.

Registrants were selected randomly from allthose registered within their profession for thelast complete renewal cycle (the two yearperiod after which registrants must renew their

registration). This meant that those new to theirprofession and those returning to practicewere not selected.

Deferral

We recognised that, due to unavoidablecircumstances, some registrants would needto defer (put off) their audit. This was becausethey could not fill in their CPD profile as a resultof illness, family circumstances or maternityleave. ‘Deferral’ offers those who cannotcomplete their CPD profiles due tocircumstances beyond their control theopportunity to stay registered.

When requesting ‘deferral’ we ask thatregistrants write to us as soon as possiblegiving their reasons for deferring and evidenceto support it. Anyone accepted for deferral willbe automatically included in the next round ofCPD audits.

Sample size

When the first audits took place in 2008, weselected five per cent of the first twoprofessions (chiropodists / podiatrists, andoperating department practitioners).Dependent on the outcome of those audits,we then proposed to audit 2.5 per cent of theprofessions after that.

We chose levels of five per cent and 2.5per cent after taking account of the totalnumber of registrants on each part of theRegister. We also took advice on samplesizes from the Statistical Services Centre atthe University of Reading. For more informationsee the report produced by the University ofReading, which is available at www.hpc-uk.org/assets/documents/1000275520090326-Council-enclosure24-CPDsamplesizes.pdf

It is our intention to review the sample sizesonce the first round of audits is completed inJune 2010. At that point all 13 professionswhich were part of the HPC Register in 2006will have been through the CPD audit process.

The CPD audit process


Developing the audit process

In June 2007 we held a test assessment dayto investigate the most effective methods ofassessing CPD profiles. We invited ourregistration assessors to volunteer to submita profile of their CPD for assessment, and afurther group of assessors to undertake theassessments. We selected 20 of thevolunteers to participate.

The assessors worked in pairs looking at theprofiles and accompanying evidence. Theythen discussed the profiles before reaching ajoint decision. As the CPD standards are thesame for all the professions we regulate, wealso trialled ‘cross-profession assessing’. Thismeant that the second assessor would befrom a different profession.

Assessor appointments

We appointed 31 CPD assessors from the firstfour professions to be audited. They worked as‘partners’ of the HPC to undertake theassessment of CPD profiles.

To recruit the CPD assessors we wrote to ourcurrent partners and advertised on ourwebsite. Where there was a shortfall, we alsoadvertised in professional journals. We requiredapplicants to be registered members of theprofessions with appropriate experience ofreview and assessment.

Assessor training

Once appointed, the assessors were invitedto attend training days at our offices. The aimsof the training sessions were to enableassessors to:

– understand and apply the CPD standards;

– understand the assessment process;

– undertake a CPD assessment; and

– make well reasoned decisions.

The assessor training days were facilitatedby the CPD Communications Managerand members of the Policy andStandards Department. They were amixture of presentations, discussion andpractical exercises.

Assessment days

Given the number of CPD profiles that neededto be assessed, an efficient method ofassessment was required. Previously,‘International’ and ‘Grandparenting’applications had been copied and posted toregistration assessors in order for them to beassessed at home. However, it was decidedthat CPD profiles would be assessed at ouroffices, with the assessors working in pairs andrecording their decisions together.

The first assessment day took place in June2008 when six assessors completed overseventy profiles submitted by chiropodists /podiatrists. A further five assessment daystook place during the summer and a total of450 profiles were assessed. When assessmentdays resumed in October 2008 for operatingdepartment practitioners, we were able toinvite a number of the chiropodist / podiatristassessors to assist with the audit. This was thefirst occasion when profiles were assessed bytwo assessors from different professions. Thechiropodists / podiatrists adapted easily toassessing a new profession and were able toapply the five standards for CPD withouthaving in-depth knowledge of the work ofoperating department practitioners. In total346 operating department practitioner profileswere assessed over five assessment days.

The process recommenced in July 2009 forthe CPD audit of orthoptists and paramedics.Once again, our new assessors workedalongside assessors from the previouslyaudited professions, who were keen to refreshtheir skills and pass on their experience.The assessment days continued throughoutAugust and September with a total of 25orthoptists and 336 paramedics assessed.

Assessing the profiles


Assessment decisions

Assessors have a range of assessmentdecisions, which are set out below.

– Decide that the profile meets theCPD standards.

– Request further information, to besupplied within 28 days. For example,this decision may be reached if theassessors need more information abouta CPD activity or if evidence is missing.

– Allow further time for the registrant tomeet the CPD standards. This is a fixedperiod of three months and is open tothe assessors where a registrant hasshown that they are committed toCPD but needs more help in meetingthe standards.

– Reject the profile.

Assessor feedback

This section contains personal accounts fromfour CPD assessors who were involved in thefirst audits.

Emma Supple – chiropodist / podiatristCPD assessor

“The requirements of the CPD audit areinnovative and pioneering. The emphasis ison benefits to patients and reflects the role,scope and active plans for the life-long learningof a health professional with the guidance ofthe Health Professions Council to have a‘light touch’.

“I became involved as I have been aprofessional partner for the HPC on theRegister as a chiropodist / podiatrist since2003. I also hold a post in the NHS as apodiatric surgeon.

“As podiatrists were the first of the registrantsto be audited for the CPD cycle it was aninteresting and useful process to take part in.One month after our training day we wereinvited to the HPC’s offices in South Londonand were given huge bundles of paperwork towork through to assess the recent CPD cycleover the last two years for each individualselected for audit. There was a clearrandomisation as all aspects of podiatry practicewere covered including high level managementand researchers. It was always straightforwardwhen a registrant had read the instructions andpresented their information in the correct format.Even so it was very heartening to read about thehuge diversity of work carried out in the name ofpodiatry which included some surprises such asear piercing licences!

“Some registrants submitted out-of-datematerial and this needs to be made more clearin future accompanying explanatory notes. Twoassessors checked the submissions fordiscrepancies or concerns. We were able inthe first instance to request further information.Alongside the exemplary submissions weresubmissions from those who had notsubmitted or shown any attempt to increasetheir knowledge over the preceding years andcertainly not within the required timeframe.

“Most of the resubmissions readily met theserequirements but some failed to grasp theneed to show a commitment to the CPD cycleand process, and more information and moretime to undertake CPD activities was grantedto them.

“I was pleased to be a part of this overallpositive system and was then asked to assistwith the ODP [operating departmentpractitioner] audit cycle. As a podiatric surgeonI found that my experience of operatingtheatres was helpful when reviewing CPDprofiles of ODPs. Here again the clear, conciseand well thought out submissions wereplentiful and it was fascinating to learn aboutthe profession of ODP in this detailed manner.



“In summary I found the process to be positiveand certainly it is important to be maintainingyour individual portfolio and a sense of directionin one’s own learning. No doubt those whowere asked to submit profiles had beendaunted by the task but in reading thesubmissions there was a sense of professionalpride in the many achievements accomplished.”

Maria Boutabba – Operatingdepartment practitioner CPD assessor

“I am a senior ODP [operating departmentpractitioner] with clinical team leader surgicalresponsibilities in a developing and forward-thinking day surgery unit. In addition to thisI am an occasional visiting lecturer and havebeen involved in partnership with a universityfor developing a programme of study enablingperioperative healthcare assistants to developand extend their skills through a FoundationDegree framework – part of a local ‘developingthe perioperative workforce’ initiative.

“I became a ‘Partner’ with the HPC in 2004.To this day, I am amazed that I attended theinterview not really believing I would be ‘goodenough’ to be part of such a high-profile publicorganisation. I felt really passionate aboutprotecting the public, making them moreaware of my profession and how we contributeto their care. Here I am today, as a valuedregistration assessor and panel member takingpart in assessing CPD profiles.

“I attended a CPD assessment training dayalongside other colleagues in my profession –a mix of academic and clinical practitioners.For me the CPD standards were reasonable tofollow – what we needed as a group ofassessors was to be very clear and focused sothat we did not assess the academic style ofthe profile but assessed profiles against clearlyarticulated CPD standards. It could be so easyfor some assessors to get trapped in anacademic style of assessment. As aregistration assessor, I was used to the style ofHPC documentation and thus felt confident

that I could apply my skills as a fairand reasonable CPD assessor usingmeasurable standards.

“Like when assessing registration applications,CPD assessors work in pairs, reviewing profilesand coming to a joint decision. We were one ofthe first professional groups to be audited andthus my early experience of assessing profileswas during an ‘assessment day’ held at theHPC. This was very useful because we workedin pairs and were able to work face-to-face todiscuss the profiles and share our developingexperience with the HPC and other assessorsin the group. As an assessor, I quickly becamefamiliar with the standards which wouldultimately guide our decision making. Fromthat initial day, I now continue to assessprofiles remotely with another assessor oftenthrough a series of emails and always makinga shared decision within a two-week period.

“Most of the profiles were fine and it was aninspiration to see such a diversity of roles withinthe ODP profession. It was also a shared senseof pride to see that registrants had really takenon board the value of CPD and had submittedprofiles which clearly met the standards. Incontrast, other profiles really struggled to meetthe standards. As an assessor, I genuinelyempathise with those registrants who do notmeet the standards and are either requested toprovide more information or given more time toresubmit a profile. As an assessor, I am notthere to make it difficult for such registrants butto clearly state what it is they need to provide sothat their CPD evidence meets the standardsand maintains their registration. The mostcommon errors are that registrants do notsubmit a list of CPD activity to meet standard 1,or they do not clearly articulate why their sampleof CPD activity benefits them in terms ofprofessional development or how it benefitsservice users (standards 3 and 4). I am stillinvolved with assessing the final few that arecoming through as resubmissions but I haveenjoyed the CPD assessment journey andlearned so much from the process.”



Felicity Court and Helen Fletcher –Speech and language therapistCPD assessors

Felicity Court and Helen Fletcher, both speechand language therapists who have worked asCPD assessors, give their personal feedbackon assessing CPD profiles below. They havechosen to do this by giving examples of whatthey found good, poor or unnecessaryin submissions.

Examples of good practice inCPD submissions

– Printing and sending a list of CPDactivities for the whole period of CPDbeing assessed (ie allowing assessors toclearly see that standard 1 is met).

– Printing and sending examples ofdifferent types of CPD activities for thewhole period of CPD being assessed(ie allowing assessors to clearly see thatstandard 2 is met).

– A detailed personal statement thatfocuses on three to four differentCPD activities.

– Personal statement taking a number ofpersonal / professional objectives andthen demonstrating how these have beenmet and the benefits to service users.

– Use of one or two A4 pages to write upa record of a CPD activity undertaken (egwhat they did, what was learnt, what thebenefits were).

– Using a structured format for the personalstatement. For example: activity; whatI leaned; how this learning affected howI work; how my learning has benefitedservice users / quality of work.

Examples of questionable / poorpractice in CPD submissions

– Sending in pieces of evidence marked“highly confidential” or “confidential”.

– Failing to send in a list of their CPDactivities over the last two years todemonstrate that standard 1 hadbeen met.

– Submitting copies of patient reports /letters / case notes or patient-identifiableinformation as part of CPD evidence.

– Keeping a record of day-to-day workactivities (ie confusion between what isCPD and what is actual work). Forexample: activity = budget meeting;learned = update on budget; comments= recruit to vacancy.

– Listing activities that form part of a jobdescription as a CPD activity withoutdemonstrating standards 3 and 4 havebeen met. For example, recruitmentactivities such as short-listing for a postor interviewing are only CPD activities ifthe registrant is learning / developingtheir practice within these activities andcan clearly explain and evidence this.

– Sending a sample of professional bodyCPD log and suggesting that theassessors could log on and look at thelog if further information required.

– Repeated use of “we” in CPD statementwith focus on what the department,service or organisation had achievedrather than what the individual had learnt.

– Excessive use of profession-specificabbreviations in statement.

– Printing and sending professional bodyCPD in monthly / calendar format or justprinting the certificate or hours, as thisprovides insufficient detail.



Examples of potentially unnecessarypractice in CPD submissions

– Sending large folders or a bound bookfull of CPD evidence.

– Re-typing professional body CPDinformation into a Word document.

– Writing-up six or more activities inpersonal statement.



In this section we give statistics for the outcomeof the CPD audits for the first four professionswe audited: chiropodists / podiatrists;operating department practitioners; orthoptists;and paramedics.

For each of the professions we have included atable which outlines the outcome of the audit.We have also included graphs to illustrate someof the trends we identified in the audit.

Key to tables and graphs

The results of the CPD audits are presented byprofession. We have categorised each registrantaudited into one of seven different categories.An explanation of each of these categories isgiven below.

Accepted The CPD profile met the CPD standards.

Deferred The registrant was selected for audit butrequested a deferral due to unavoidablecircumstances, and we accepted their request.

Deregistered (voluntarily) The registrant was selected for audit but did notparticipate in the audit and asked us to removetheir name from our Register.

Deregistered (lapsed) The registrant was removed from the Registerbecause they did not pay the registration fee orsend a completed renewal form to us.

Under assessment The registrant’s CPD profile is currentlybeing assessed.

Appealed The CPD profile did not meet the standards orthe registrant failed to submit a CPD profile andthe registrant appealed against the decision toremove them from the Register.

Removed The registrant was removed from the Registerbecause their profile was assessed as notmeeting the CPD standards but did not appealagainst the decision.

Audit results


Chiropodists / podiatrists

We audited five per cent of all chiropodists /podiatrists in May 2008.

Table 3 – Outcome of CPD audit ofchiropodists / podiatrists

Outcome Number of % sampleregistrants

Accepted 480 73.8

Deferred 66 10.2

Deregistered 41 6.3(voluntarily)

Deregistered 62 9.5(lapsed)

Under 0 0assessment

Appealed 1 0.2

Removed 0 0

Total 650 100

The majority of registrants who were audited(78.5% of the total accepted) had their profilesaccepted on their first assessment. A further103 were required to provide furtherinformation before their profiles were deemedto have met the standards.

Approximately 16 per cent of registrants (103registrants) selected for audit either voluntarilyderegistered or lapsed from the Register. Thismeans that approximately one in six registrantsselected for CPD audit did not continue theirregistration after the end of the registrationcycle, compared to one in 13 registrantsacross the whole profession. This seems toindicate that registrants’ decisions to come offthe Register may have been influenced by theirselection for CPD audit.

The following graphs illustrate the age range ofchiropodists / podiatrists selected for CPDaudit and the age range of those who decidedto voluntarily deregister or lapse. This showsthat a high percentage of those registrantswho voluntarily deregistered and lapsed wherein the over 50 age bands. This is also reflectiveof the age profile of those chiropodists /podiatrists selected for CPD audit.

Currently only one registrant selected for audithas failed to meet the CPD standards. Thisregistrant is appealing against this decision. Theregistrant failed the CPD audit because wereceived no response to any of the letters wesent requesting the profile. There was also noresponse to the final letter advising that theregistrant was being removed from the Register.

Graph 3 – All chiropodists / podiatristsselected for CPD audit by age

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

65+

60-6

455

-59

50-5

445

-49

40-4

435

-39

30-3

425

-29

20-2

4

Num

ber

Age range


Audit results

Graph 4 – Age range of chiropodists /podiatrists selected for CPD audit whoderegistered (voluntarily)

Graph 5 – Age range of chiropodists /podiatrists selected for CPD audit whoderegistered (lapsed)

Operating departmentpractitioners

We audited five per cent of all operatingdepartment practitioners in September 2008.

Table 4 – Outcome of CPD audit ofoperating department practitioners


Accepted 371 79

Deferred 49 10.4



Under assessment 13 2.8

Appealed 6 1.3

Removed 2 0.4

Total 470 100

The majority of registrants who were audited(79.5% of the total accepted) had their profilesaccepted on their first assessment. A further76 were required to provide further informationbefore their profiles were deemed to have metthe standards.

Twenty nine (approximately 6%) of registrantsselected for audit either voluntarily deregisteredor lapsed from the Register. This means thatapproximately one in 16 registrants selectedfor audit did not continue their registration afterthe end of the registration cycle, compared toone in 13 registrants across the wholeprofession. This seems to indicate thatregistrants’ decisions to come off the Registermight have been influenced by their selectionfor CPD audit. However, the number ofregistrants may be too small to safely draw thisconclusion.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Num

ber

65+

60-6

455

-59

50-5

445

-49

40-4

435

-39

30-3

425

-29

20-2

4

Age range

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Num

ber

65+

60-6

455

-59

50-5

445

-49

40-4

435

-39

30-3

425

-29

20-2

4

Age range


Audit results

Graph 7 shows the age range of operatingdepartment practitioners selected for CPDaudit who deregistered (voluntarily). This showsthat a high percentage of those registrantswho voluntarily deregistered where in the over50 age bands and this is not comparable withthe age profile of those operating departmentpractitioner registrants selected for CPD auditas shown in Graph 6.

Currently there are eight registrants who havebeen selected for audit and have failed to meetthe CPD standards. Of these, six haveappealed against the decision and two havebeen removed from the Register. The sixregistrants that have appealed and the tworegistrants that have been removed from theRegister failed the CPD audit because they didnot respond to any of the letters we sent themrequesting their profile. They also did notrespond to the final letter advising them theywere being removed from the Register.

Graph 6 – Operating departmentpractitioners selected for CPD audit byage range

Graph 7 – Operating departmentpractitioners selected for CPD audit whoderegistered (voluntarily) by age range

Orthoptists

We audited 2.5 per cent of all orthoptists inJune 2009.

Table 5 – Outcome of CPD audit oforthoptists


Accepted 22 73.4

Deferred 3 10



Under assessment 3 10

Appealed 0 0

Removed 0 0

Total 30 100

0

1

2

3

4

Num

ber

65+

60-6

455

-59

50-5

445

-49

40-4

435

-39

30-3

425

-29

20-2

4

Age range

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Num

ber

65+

60-6

455

-59

50-5

445

-49

40-4

435

-39

30-3

425

-29

20-2

4

Age range


Audit results

The majority of registrants who were audited(90% of the total accepted) had their profilesaccepted on their first assessment. Tworegistrants were required to provide furtherinformation before their profiles were deemedto have met the standards.

Two registrants selected for audit eithervoluntary deregistered or lapsed from theRegister. This means that approximately one in15 registrants selected for audit did notcontinue their registration after the end of theregistration cycle, compared to one in 21registrants across the whole profession. Thisseems to indicate that registrants’ decisions tocome off the Register might have beeninfluenced by their selection for CPD audit.However, the number of registrants involvedmay be too small to safely draw this conclusion.The age profile of those orthoptists selected forCPD audit is shown in Graph 8.

Graph 8 – Orthoptists selected for CPDaudit by age range

Paramedics

We audited 2.5 per cent of all paramedicsin 2009.

Table 6 – Outcome of CPD audit ofparamedics


Accepted 302 79.8

Deferred 26 6.9



Under assessment 37 9.8

Appealed 0 0

Removed 0 0

Total 378 100

The majority of registrants selected for audit(83% of the total number accepted) met theCPD standards on their first assessment.A further 51 were required to provide furtherinformation before their profiles were deemedto have met the standards.

Thirteen registrants (approximately 3.5%)selected for audit either voluntarily deregisteredor lapsed from the Register. This means thatapproximately one in 29 registrants selectedfor CPD did not continue their registration afterthe end of the renewal window, compared to 1in 37 registrants across the whole profession.This seems to indicate that registrants’decisions to come off the Register might havebeen influenced by their selection for CPDaudit. However, the number of registrantsinvolved may be too small to safely draw thisconclusion. The age profile of paramedicsselected for CPD audit is shown in Graph 9.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Num

ber

65+

60-6

455

-59

50-5

445

-49

40-4

435

-39

30-3

425

-29

Age range


Audit results

Graph 9 – Paramedics selected for CPDaudit by age range

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Num

ber

65+

60-6

455

-59

50-5

445

-49

40-4

435

-39

30-3

425

-29

20-2

4

Age range


Audit results

Reason for deferral Profession

Chiropodists Operating Paramedics Orthoptists Total % total/ podiatrists department

practitioners

Personal 21 17 14 0 52 35.7illness / accident

Family illness / 16 14 3 0 33 23.6commitments

Maternity 13 11 4 2 30 21.4

Relationship 7 2 4 1 14 10breakdown

Bereavement 4 1 0 0 5 3.6

Career break / travel 2 3 1 0 6 4.3

Other 3 1 0 0 4 1.4

Total 66 49 26 3 144 100


Audit results

Table 7 – Reasons for deferral

Deferral

Table 7 shows that in each professionapproximately seven to ten per cent ofregistrants selected for audit were allowed todefer their CPD audit. These registrants will beautomatically selected for audit when they nextrenew their registration.

The table below shows that 59 per cent ofapproved deferral requests were due topersonal or family illness, with a further 21per cent due to pregnancy or having recentlygiven birth.

These audit results only relate to four of the 14professions we currently regulate and we plan toreview the outcomes of the audits in more detailonce we have completed the audits for the first13 professions to go through the process.

However, it is still interesting to note that (to date)from a total of 1,528 registrants who wereselected for CPD audit,1,175 registrants(approximately 77%) had their profiles acceptedand of those approximately 80 per cent wereaccepted after their first assessment. This givessome indication that registrants are engaging inthe CPD audit process. It also indicates that theguidance and communication provided by us isenabling registrants to complete their CPDprofiles in a way that demonstrates that theymeet the CPD standards.

The proportion of registrants selected for auditwho allowed their registration to lapse or whovoluntarily removed themselves from theRegister varied between the professions.For example, 15.8 per cent of chiropodists /podiatrists lapsed or voluntarily deregisteredcompared to 3.5 per cent of paramedics.

In each of the professions the proportion ofregistrants choosing not to remain registeredwas higher than of the profession as a whole.In particular, our figures indicate thatchiropodists / podiatrists selected for CPDaudit were twice as likely to lapse or removethemselves from the Register than theprofession as a whole.

We have included information in this documentabout the age profile of those selected foraudit in each of the professions and the dataindicates that those who lapsed or voluntarilyderegistered were generally in the over 50 agebands. This seems to suggest that onepossible explanation for this trend is that someof these registrants may be retiring from theirprofession. However, given the audit samplesizes, the number of registrants involved isrelatively small and we would need to monitorfuture audits to see whether this trendcontinues before drawing any firm conclusions.

Once we have completed the audits for moreprofessions we hope to be able to provide amore detailed analysis of any trends across thedifferent professions.

Overall audit summary


The audit selection process is completelyrandom (see page 11) but registrants havesometimes expressed concern that this mightmean that more registrants from certain areasare audited each time.

We have included a series of maps whichshow where registrants in each of the auditedprofessions live. They show that the randomselection process has resulted in a reasonablespread of audited registrants in each of thefour home countries.

Audit selection maps


Figure 1 – Map showing chiropodists / podiatrists selected for CPD audit



Figure 2 – Map showing operating department practitioners selected for CPD audit

Figure 3 – Map showing orthoptists selected for CPD audit





Figure 4 – Map showing paramedics selected for CPD audit

We hope that you have found this reportinformative. Since launching the firstconsultation on CPD in 2004 we have beencommitted to implementing a process for CPDthat is valuable and fair to registrants.

The first four audits indicate that registrants areundertaking CPD to support their learning anddevelopment. The majority of profiles diddemonstrate the links between ongoinglearning and benefits to practice and serviceusers. The quality of the CPD profiles we haveseen so far also demonstrates thecommitment that registrants have tomaintaining their CPD portfolios, reflecting abroad range of CPD activities.

This commitment from registrants hasconfirmed that the decision to reduce the auditsize from five per cent to 2.5 per cent wascorrect and that the sampling process is, forthe time being, appropriate. We will review thison an ongoing basis and look forward topresenting further reports on the otherprofessions to be audited.

Conclusion


Tables

Table 1 – CPD talks delivered 9

Table 2 – Number of registrants in four home countries and the Channel Islands andthe Isle of Man 9

Table 3 – Outcome of CPD audit of chiropodists / podiatrists 18

Table 4 – Outcome of CPD audit of operating department practitioners 19

Table 5 – Outcome of CPD audit of orthoptists 20

Table 6 – Outcome of CPD audit of paramedics 21

Table 7 – Reasons for deferral 23

Graphs

Graph 1 – CPD talks delivered 9

Graph 2 – Number of registrants in four home countries and the Channel Islands andthe Isle of Man 9

Graph 3 – All chiropodists / podiatrists selected for CPD audit by age 18

Graph 4 – Age range of chiropodists / podiatrists selected for CPD audit who deregistered(voluntarily) 19

Graph 5 – Age range of chiropodists / podiatrists selected for CPD audit who deregistered(lapsed) 19

Graph 6 – Operating department practitioners selected for CPD audit by age range 20

Graph 7 – Operating department practitioners selected for CPD audit who deregistered(voluntarily) by age range 20

Graph 8 – Orthoptists selected for CPD audit by age range 21

Graph 9 – Paramedics selected for CPD audit by age range 22

Figures

Figure 1 – Map showing chiropodists / podiatrists selected for CPD audit 25

Figure 2 – Map showing operating department practitioners selected for CPD audit 26

Figure 3 – Map showing orthoptists selected for CPD audit 27

Figure 4 – Map showing paramedics selected for CPD audit 28

List of tables, graphs and figures


The following publications are available from our website at www.hpc-uk.org/publications/brochures

– Your guide to our standards for continuing development

– Continuing professional development and your registration

– How to complete you continuing professional development profile

The following audio-visual presentation is available on our website at www.hpc-uk.org/registrants/cpd

– Continuing professional development (CPD)

The sample profiles can be downloaded in the registrant section of our website at www.hpc-uk.org/registrants/cpd/sampleprofiles

The following consultations are available from our website at www.hpc-uk.org/publications/consultations

– Continuing Professional Development – Consultation paper

– Continuing Professional Development – Key decisions

– Consultation on an amendment to the Health Professions Council Standards for ContinuingProfessional Development

You can find more information on the CPD professional liaison group (PLG) on our website atwww.hpc-uk.org/aboutus/ professionalliaisongroups/cpd

The Health Professions Order 2001 is available on our website at www.hpc-uk.org/publications/ruleslegislation

Further information


This document is available in alternativeformats and Welsh on request.Call 020 7840 9806or email [email protected]

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: CPDreport10 (published March 2010)This document has been produced using trees from sustainable forests

Cert no. SGS-COC-003142

Documents

Continuing professional development annual report - · PDF fileContinuing professional development annual report. Foreword 3 Introduction 4 Aboutthisdocument4 ... Graph7–Operatingdepartment