Page Comparison

The following fields are reported by teams as not being used:

Review time, portfolio review date, trainee notified of outcome nor any of the additional fields.

Review Time and Portfolio Review Date

we don't have any use for the curriculum specialty (14) or sub-type (15) as far as I'm aware.

Comments (12) should possibly be removed, or at least made only visible to local teams

The Assessment Status (4) field could be useful if we could report on it properly; it's not useful in and of itself currently to us

PYA (23) is not just for the completion of GIM - it's for any Medicine (JRCPTB) curriculum.

Academic curriculum assessed (1) refers to the academic curriculum the trainee is on (e.g. ACF, ACL) and was assessed in (Academic Outcome, 2)

comments such as "Trainee progressing well" should now be included in the Supplementary Detail section under Detailed reasons for recommended outcome (1) or Additional comments from the panel (6), depending on the outcome/details

The field 'next review date' used to auto-populate the next ARCP form on the system, but no longer does this. This is a particular feature I used to use a lot and would be really useful to me if there could be something like this on TIS

The 'next review date' field; should this date be one year exactly after the assessment you are inputting? On the most part yes, but often we need to have a review before that, for those out of sync trainees who are due to gateway before the year is up or for trainees who have had an adverse outcome

Additional Fields, we use Panel Members. Employer/Exception reports is a legacy field to avoid data issues (this process was replaced with the LEP Report). In theory, the other 3 Additional Fields could be useful, but our ability to customise these has been very limited, and I'm not sure how much use they'd be going forwards

There's kind of two parts to this; I'll talk about the second in a bit (how the fields could be improved), but the first is more of a national/HEDG/whatever decision, which is whether these fields are still necessary? As far as I'm aware, the documentation/activities/exams fields are a carry-over from the old RITA days, when panels might need to record the specific evidence seen. However, now the panels just view the ePorfolio; there might be particular pieces of evidence that are especially relevant to the ARCP outcome, but these are should be commented on in the appropriate Supplementary Detail fields anyway (i.e. if the reason for an O3 is exam failure, "Detailed reasons for recommended outcome" should be, for example, "MRCPCH Part 2 failure"; if an exceptional O3 is being awarded following recommendation from OH, "Mitigating circumstances" would include "Letter from OH regarding sickness"). I personally think that the "Activities", "Exams" and "Documentation" fields are surplus and not useful now, but that would probably require agreement from HEDG/similar

If we are expected to continue to use these fields, for starters, being able to have 'default' lists for certain curricula would be useful. For example, having the MRCGP exam results available as an option for evidence considered would be a complete waste in Paediatrics. We should also be able to isolate this by regions; for example, our Paediatrics programme uses summary documents, which the trainees complete to summarise their evidence/training over the period being assessed, and one of the panel members uses this in the ARCP (adding their own notes having reviewed the portfolio ahead of time) to 'present' the portfolio to the panel. I don't know of any other regions doing this, but having the ability to include "Summary document" in Documentation would be useful to us. This would probably require having something like a national reference table with the ability to add ARCP Acitivites/Exams/Documentation to a curriculum (or vice-versa), and within that, mark which regions it would be available to (similar to the new Associated Local Offices field in Intrepid)

Panel members we use anyway, but would need to have some kind of reference table to populate this with, or a more streamlined approach would be to have panel members 'book' on to certain ARCP panels, with admins then having the facility to remove them from entire panels (if they didn't show up) or from individual ARCPs (if they left part-way through the day/had to step out as they were a particular trainee's Educational Supervisor/whatever)

Employer/Exception Reports is a legacy field; I think this should probably be kept as a read-only legacy field for the time being, as it'll only apply to ARCPs between April 2013 (when revalidation started for junior doctors) and Winter 2015 (the last round of Employer Reports before Live Reporting was introduced with the LEP Reports)

the Concern Summary should have text from the ARCP panel with regards to revalidation (e.g. "Trainee declared unresolved significant event; no current concerns but awaiting coroner's report"), whereas the Responsible Officer's Comments are for any comments the Responsible Officer needs to make on the form (as the ARCP form is the means of transferring information to a doctor's next Responsible Officer); this can either be regarding the information noted on the ARCP form by the panel (e.g. "Coroner's report received 06/11/2017 and reviewed by RO; no concerns") or to add additional information not covered by the ARCP panel

Currently working on GMC ARCP return and what I think would be really useful going forward is the drop down options for Grade at next rotation should include the drop down options required by GMC as well as relevant grades, for example, F2 ARCP 6 needs "Not known from ARCP as trainee applies to specialty training" or Specialty Training ARCP 6 "Trainee completed training - not applicable"