Questions and feedback from PO's, BA's and SMLs/BMs.
...
...
...
...
...
...
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
...
Remove:
- review time
- portfolio review date
- trainee notified of outcome
...
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)
...
- Joanne Watson (Unlicensed) to get feedback on this
- leave all fields as is for now
...
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"
...
- Change values within "Grade at Next Rotation Field" drop down (Joanne Watson (Unlicensed) to get GMC ARCP return recognised fields)
- Within post-assessment detail field #9
...
Journey
- bulk upload of assessments within Assessments megamenu
- view/search within assessments with filtering
- person record shows outcome only
- click through to assessments detail page within Assessment
- indicate on navigation to show them where they are (STEVE)
- back button to take user back to previous location
...
Navigation
...
Questions and feedback from PO's, BA's and SMLs/BMs.
# | Feedback | Comment | Reporter | Notes | Owner |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | The following fields are reported by teams as not being used:
| Remove:
| Review time has been removed but still need to remove Portfolio Review Date and Trainee Notified of Outcome field | ||
2 | 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 | Consideration for reporting | |||
3 | PYA (23) is not just for the completion of GIM - it's for any Medicine (JRCPTB) curriculum. | No additional work required | |||
4 | Academic curriculum assessed (1) refers to the academic curriculum the trainee is on (e.g. ACF, ACL) and was assessed in (Academic Outcome, 2) | No additional work required | |||
5 | 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 | No additional work required | |||
6 | 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 | Next review date should exactly 1 year following the most recent one, but should be editable | Not implemented yet - and not a mandatory field. | ||
7 | 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) |
| Removed from TIS - see app for fields included now. | ||
8 | 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 | No additional work required | |||
9 | 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" |
| |||
10 | Journey
| ||||
11 | Navigation
| ||||
12 | Do we need to record completion and outcome of the exams (AKT, CSA) GP trainees do on TIS? Some local offices seem to record this on Intrepid but i know RCGP eportfolio is often the primary system for such data. | No, can be managed via E-portfolio | Alistair Pringle (Unlicensed) | Joanne Watson (Unlicensed) | |
13 | Confirm if anything is no longer correct? For example do we still need the outcomes for RITA and for LAT and FTSTA trainees? | as long as there's still legacy outcomes for RITAs/LATs/FTSTAs, I don't think we'll need those any more (RITA and FTSTA are gone, and I think LATs are only continuing in the other nations) Otherwise it looks fine | Outcomes from 2016 and before will appear in TIS as read only values to maintain the legacy values. | ||
14 | Create an Assessment | There should be an option to create an assessment in a person’s record too Also I do not believe that a front page for Assessments showing all assessments, for all trainees of all specialties, is particularly useful. I am not sure I would ever navigate to a trainee’s ARCP pages from this page as it brings up all trainees of the same name? Being able to batch create/update assessments for a number of trainees at a time would however be useful Under Event ‘trainee ID’ needs to be GMC number Layout of page is clunky. Forename and surname are better suited next to one another One page to add all ARCP info would be easier to navigate than 4 different pages | Gemma Sams | Adding an assessment via the trainee record has been included in interation two of component - as demoed in the S&T 1/2/18. Bulk update functionality is in backlog of tasks Aim to remove the trainee ID from all areas of the UI - frequently reported feedback. UI flow has been designed to go down each column rather than along the row. | |
Create an Assessment | When typing in ‘Grade at next rotation’ and ‘Academic curriculum assessed’ no options begin to appear and not able to select an option from drop down box | Laura Griffiths | Post-assessment functionality not in iteration one. | ||
Create an Assessment | I can add the date, type and Status, but I am not able to add anything under Programme number - I can't even click into the box. It also shows Programme name is populated but underneath in red highlights that Programme name is required. As I can’t save this information, I am unable to test further in adding an assessment. | Laura West | IE issue. IE compatibility issues are in the process of being worked through and added back in to E2E testing. | ||
Create an Assessment | It would be more helpful if there were clues of how to use this page like ‘type in GMC number first’. RITA shouldn’t be an option under ‘type’ for anything but legacy items. No trainee should be awarded a RITA anymore. I’m unclear how the type of ‘academic’ would be used so I’m not sure how useful that would be. All academic assessments are by definition also an ARCP. It feels like there is a lot of blank space on the page and fields could be pulled together a little so you don’t have to scroll down/worry you’re missing something. | Madeline Leverton | Tool tips Is this a common agreement? Post-assessment Links to having all the info on one page issue. | ||
Create an Assessment | I can create an assessment and add information in the fields, but I am unable to save this information in Pre – assessments and Post – assessment limiting me to further testing. | Joanne O'Brien | Will need to look into further as Pre-assessment has been working. | ||
Create an Assessment |
| Angela McMahon |
| ||
Create an Assessment |
| Matthew Hill |
| ||
Create an Assessment |
| Mike Richardson |
| ||
Create an Assessment |
| Claire Whittle |
| ||
Create an Assessment |
| Maria Kist |
| ||
Create an Assessment |
| Sue Barrand |
| ||
Create an Assessment |
| Alice Brindle |
| ||
Create an Assessment |
| Y&H |
| ||
Create an Assessment |
| Oliver Witos |
| ||
15 | View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) |
| Gemma Sams |
| |
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) |
| Laura Griffiths |
| ||
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) |
| Laura West |
| ||
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) |
| Madeline Leverton |
| ||
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) |
| Joanne O'Brien |
| ||
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) | Post assessment detail will not save. | Angela McMahon | Not in this iteration | ||
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) | When editing post assessment page it will not save | Matthew Hill | Not in this iteration | ||
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) | I can view and edit and assessment but everything above still applies. | Mike Richardson | OK | ||
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) |
| Claire Whittle |
12. Agree 14. Yes, reporting requirements 15. Navigation | ||
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) | 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" | Lynn Bradley | Good call | ||
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) |
| Maria Kist |
6. Sort? 7. Current functionality. | ||
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) |
| Sue Barrand |
| ||
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) |
| Alice Brindle |
| ||
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) |
| Y&H |
| ||
View/edit assessments (admin) (pre-assessment only) |
| Oliver Witos |
| ||
16 | View assessments outcome in a person record |
| Laura West |
| |
View assessments outcome in a person record |
| Madeline Leverton |
| ||
View assessments outcome in a person record |
| Joanne O'Brien |
| ||
View assessments outcome in a person record | On the ARCP summary page it is not pulling previous outcomes, review date or curriculum through when accessing via person record but appears to show this when accessed via assessments with the exception of outcome and review date | Angela McMahon | To be looked at | ||
View assessments outcome in a person record | Outcome box shows but blank as wasn’t able to add when creating | Matthew Hill | Next iteration | ||
View assessments outcome in a person record | Yes but why do we have to go here to add the detail rather than via the create assessment screen? I don’t appear to be able to select what I need and Save in this screen. | Mike Richardson | Navigation | ||
View assessments outcome in a person record | In Assessments under person record – dates are written in YYYY/MM/DD format. Within the record, they are the other way round, i.e. DD/MM/YYYY. This should be consistent across TIS. | Claire Whittle | Agree | ||
View assessments outcome in a person record |
| Maria Kist |
| ||
View assessments outcome in a person record | I cannot find anywhere to record an assessment outcome. | Sue Barrand | Post assessment | ||
View assessments outcome in a person record | There is no outcome field in a person’s assessment record. | Alice Brindle | Post assessment | ||
View assessments outcome in a person record |
| Y&H |
| ||
View assessments outcome in a person record | Not able to see the outcome when listed | Oliver Witos | To be fixed | ||
17 | Data – correct and present | Pre populated data seems to be correct | Laura Griffiths | thanks | |
Data – correct and present | Data that is there looks correct but as above it has not pulled through everything. | Laura West | Agree - to be looked into | ||
Data – correct and present | This appears to be correct, but sometimes information isn’t pulling through – see feedback above for more details. | Medeline Leverton | As above | ||
Data – correct and present | Doesn’t look like all data is being pulled through. | Joanne O'Brien | As above | ||
Data – correct and present |
| Angela McMahon |
| ||
Data – correct and present | When searching for a hyphenated name (Smith-Jack) nothing comes up | Matthew Hill | Search function need to be improved | ||
Data – correct and present | I don’t think so, historic assessments don’t seem to have any details shown. | Mike Richardson | We know there is some info not coming through - can you let me know a GMC no. of all details missing? | ||
Data – correct and present |
| Claire Whittle |
| ||
Data – correct and present |
| Maria Kist |
| ||
Data – correct and present | Blank fields appearing in list of assessments for a trainee e.g. GMC no 6132340 has blank review dates and outcomes, both of which I can see in DR2. | Sue Barrand | To be fixed | ||
Data – correct and present | Comments on this have been included in my feedback above. | Alice Brindle | OK | ||
Data – correct and present | This seems correct. | Oliver Witos | OK |