Jocelyn Pryce, IBMS Head of Registration and Training, looks at ways the IBMS is working to reduce the pressures of the lab approval process.
This month I wanted to bring you all up to date with some changes that we have been trialling with respect to our training laboratory approval process. Those of you who are involved with laboratory management and training will, at some point over the last few years, have been involved in preparing the reams of documentation that we, as an education provider for the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), require to ensure our trainees experience an optimal training programme for their IBMS Registration Training Portfolio on which to build the foundations of their career in biomedical science.
As part of our review to ensure we provide quality, fit-for-purpose processes that satisfy the HCPC and benefit our members, we have been looking at ways to reduce the pressures of the laboratory approval process for both the laboratories and the IBMS Education Team. With the support of the Education and Professional Standards Committee (EPSC), and in consultation with members, we have successfully completed a pilot to ascertain whether there was an appetite for streamlining the current process.
We have developed a new-look form, which is hopefully more straightforward in requirements and will simplify the application process. The training programme appears to cause the greatest difficulty.
Historically, we have encouraged innovation and stipulated only that we need to see a demonstration of the areas of a laboratory that a trainee will be attached to, which standards they might achieve there and how this might be done. While many of you found this easy to demonstrate (usually in a tabular format), some found it more challenging and the team has spent many hours supporting laboratories along the process to produce a document which details these requirements and allows us to satisfy the needs of the HCPC.
Subsequent to the pilot, but prior to the latest EPSC meeting, we received a comment from a member suggesting that we consider “mapping” the training programme/experience directly to the portfolio, so that it is absolutely clear how each may be met.
Over the coming weeks, we will be working with members to trial this and to identify a streamlined process for laboratories to demonstrate that they have robust training in place for all levels, not just the pre-registration route. This seems to be an ideal way to satisfy all the requirements, while reducing and simplifying the processes, and so it looks to be a win-win situation.
I will stress at this point that we are aware training programmes are subject to alteration in response to service requirements and that any documentation supplied as part of the training programme will be considered as an intent, rather than set in stone.
I would like to thank everyone who took part in the pilot and who has contributed to the redevelopment process. I hope those of you who are responsible for the production of the laboratory approval documentation welcome this and that it provides you with a simplified new approach saving both time and effort. From our perspective, it will allow the approval procedure to be streamlined through the team and will result in faster turnaround times.
For more information, visit ibms.org/qualifications