Section menu

Progress outcome is determined from a review of all five sources of evidence:

  1. an evaluation of progress submitted by the trainee;
  2. an evaluation of progress submitted by the training officer;
  3. evidence on the e-portfolio of completion of assessments and competencies associated with rotation modules;
  4. progress on the academic programme (MSc);
  5. evidence of a completed multisource feedback (MSF) exercise.

 

Outcome Statement Descriptor
1 Progress satisfactory

Review of evidence indicates that the trainee has met the progression requirements and demonstrates development of professional values and attributes of a clinical scientist as appropriate for this stage of training.

Trainee and training department are commended for their efforts in actively engaging with the Scientist Training Programme.

2 Progress mostly satisfactory; attention to missing rotation competencies and/or assessments required 

Review of evidence indicates that the trainee has mostly met the progression requirements and demonstrates development of professional values and attributes as appropriate for this stage of their training. Minor concerns highlighted in the review are not deemed to be a barrier to progression to year 3 of the programme. It is noted that some competencies and assessments associated with rotation modules are still to be signed off and/or some professional values and attributes require attention. It is recommend that the trainee and training officer revise the training plan to ensure timely completion of all competencies and assessments associated with rotations prior to the start of year 3 and identify opportunities to further develop the professional values and attributes expected of a clinical scientist.

Trainee and training department are acknowledged for their efforts in actively engaging with the Scientist Training Programme.  

3 Evidence shows that progress is not being made as expected; trainee referred into the NSHCS Training Management and Support Framework. 

Review of evidence indicates that the trainee is not making progress as expected either on completing assessments and competencies of their rotation modules or in the development of professional values and attributes or a combination of both.

Trainees will be referred into the School’s Training Management and Support Framework for further investigation and to agree, as appropriate, a plan for the trainee and/or training department to facilitate progression on the programme. If trainees are deemed to not engage with the agreed actions, this could result in exit from the programme; if training departments are deemed to not engage with the agreed actions, this could result in suspension of training department accreditation.

 
4 Evaluation forms not received from either trainee or training officer or both or other evidence missing; referred to Training Management Panel. 

Insufficient or no evidence available to assess trainee’s progression. Trainees and training officers should note that failure to submit their evaluation form or other evidence of progression, without acceptable justification, constitutes a failure to engage with the review, putting the trainee’s continuation on programme and/or department accreditation at risk. Trainee or training officer will be referred to the Trainee Management Panel which will determine the next steps/actions required. 

5 No evidence expected; review to be rescheduled. 

Trainee is known to be on informed leave from programme such as maternity/paternity, long term sickness, approved exceptional extenuating circumstances; trainee to inform the School of their return to programme to trigger a scheduling of progression review.

6 Trainee is not making appropriate progress for known reasons. 

Trainee and/or training department has previously been referred to the NSHCS Training Management and Support Framework and the School is actively managing with trainee and/or training department. 

The School will conduct a review of STP trainees’ progression towards development as Clinical Scientists at approximately half way through the programme, usually in April/ May of the second year. The purpose of the Midterm Review of Progression (MRP) is to:

  1. ensure that each trainee receives an independent evaluation of their progression;
  2. give confidence to trainees, training officers, commissioners and regulators that training is being monitored providing an independent marker of progression; and
  3. offer trainees and their training officers an opportunity to alert the School to any concerns, issues or barriers to progression.

By the time of the MRP, trainees are required to have completed and signed off all assessments and competences associated directly with their rotation modules.

It is important that trainees and training officers recognise that the MRP is a summative process. This means that the evidence about each trainee’s progress and development will be used to make a decision about the trainee’s suitability to progress to year 3 of the STP and entry to the Objective Structured Final Assessment (OSFA).

Trainee progression is reviewed against the following five components:

  1. an evaluation of progress submitted by the trainee;
  2. an evaluation of progress submitted by the training officer;
  3. evidence on the e-portfolio of completion of assessments and competencies associated with rotation modules;
  4. progress on the academic programme (MSc);
  5. evidence of a completed multisource feedback (MSF) exercise.

Further details on the outcome statements and descriptors used in the review is available.

Trainees and training officers will be informed in advance of the date by which their respective evaluations of progress (1 and 2 above) are due to be submitted. These submissions will be treated in confidence.

The School recommends that trainees and training officers schedule a pre-MRP meeting to discuss progress in readiness for submitting their evaluation forms and a post-MRP meeting to discuss the outcome of the review.

Page 1 of 4