How would you rate the conference overall?

• Very good
• Good
• Satisfactory
• Poor

The reasons given in support of the poor rating were:

• no new information
• Department of Health did not attend
• few practical examples given
• no real detail regarding the way forward

25
73
69
16

2
2
3
3

What was the most positive aspect of the conference?

• Question and answer session supported by group discussion
• Networking opportunities
• Venue and facilities
• Range of speakers
• Quality assurance updat
• Key note address-user perspective
• Panel convenor
• Provided and overall understanding and update
• Information about concordat arrangements
• Activities/message wall
• International perspective
• CD disc provided
• Organisation/time keeping
• Agreement around principles
• Cabaret style seating

What was the least positive aspect of the conference?

• Too much emphasis on concepts and policy - there was a need to provide details about the way forward and practical implications regarding implementation
• Relevance of international perspective
• Use of jargon
• Department of Health not present on the panel/as a presenter
• Repletion of information with that given at other events
• Incorrect slides for a speaker
• Medical issues not included
• Standing up for lunch
• Lack of medical input to panel/speakers
• Panel’s response to Q & A session (insufficient discussion of detail)
• Pace too slow
• QA focus limited in key note (service user) session
• Limited clarity as to how policies will work in practice
• Lack of student/service user representation/speaker
• Badge holder design
• Cold room
• Plenary too long
• Panel Convenor
• Talking at nearby table
• Poor directions to venue
• Limited focus on quality enhancement/value for money
• Lack of discussion around the implications for the independent sector

Please list any suggestions you have for future conference programmes

• A case study approach which offers perspectives from all stakeholders (including commissioners), provides information as to how to implement and a focus on supporting practice learning
• Structure against themes and activities/group discussion
• Include a presentation from learners/service users
• Include medical education
• An event focused on practice learning/support and resources and QA
• Discuss NHS reforms/changes and implications for new QA arrangements
• Sit for lunch
• Provide contact list for all delegates
• Ask key questions/messages earlier in the day so they can all be answered during the proceedings/by speakers
• Keep Q & A session with convenor
• Change panel convenor
• Provide glossary and avoid jargon
• Focus on quality assurance and interprofessional learning
• Provide Q & A on web
• Evidence outcomes/value for money
• Ensure Department of Health is present
• Explore policy links more
• Provide an entry level workshop for those new to QA issues
• Include break out sessions/groups
• Good practice event
• Web-based tool event
• Brief speakers to ensure they focus on the conference theme, conference outcomes and don’t overlap each other
• Exploration of the policy links and relationship between Department of Health and Department for Education and
  Skills policies
  Mapping of standards workshop
• Start later 1

Theme

Number

Example message

Practice Educator: Securing appropriate resources to support the quality of learning in a practice setting, eg practice facilitator role - agreed with the need for parity of practice learning

17

How can we secure support for practice learning in the current financial climate and context of low staff morale? Practice facilitators have been pivotal to QA; how can we secure this role in the future?

Securing effective partnership around the Concordat and involving medical education

17

Will healthcare partnerships also embrace social care and medicine?

How does the Concordat work and how will it be monitored?

User involvement

16

How, practically, do we encourage participation? How to explore patient involvement in learner assessment

Use of jargon free language with shared definitions

10

Cut out jargon Contradictory language used What do all the different terms mean?

Determining the cost/benefit of the QA process

7

Who pays for QA? What criteria will be used to determine success/benefit?

Roles and responsibilities in service reconfigurations, especially that of education commissioners

7

What will be the role of the new Strategic Health Authorities in QA?

Involvement of the private/independent sector

4

How will the increased use of the private sector impact?

Streamlining and use of shared evidence

4

Almost unbelievable that it is not happening already. Will there be a sharing of reports as well as evidence? Will paper light approaches also mean less burden?

Including externality in the process

4

How will external scrutiny of QA be identified and work? Inspection or peer review?

Future events

4

How do we get information? I have had to attend on a day off; how can we support attendance?

Interim standards

3

How many adopters? Who is mapping all the standards that exist?

Implementation - support and timing

2

Why is there so much foot dragging?

Venue

2

A good venue

Equity and diversity in QA arrangements

2

How will this be reflected in the QA process?

Local vis a vis National compatibility

1

Will we lose the ability to compare nationally?

Major Review

1

What happens after Major Review?

Link to Skills Academy

1

How will QA fit with the Skills Academy?

Theme

Number

Key point – summary

Student and service
user involvement

12

Funding to support involvement
Train staff for user involvement
Link to PPI Forum and QA arrangements
Dissemination of best practice
Focus of health education needed, not QA
Have to secure equitable and rigorous involvement in the assessment of students
Tool kits needed to help involvement
Have to involve student forum
Leaflet needed in other languages

Funding

6

Funding required to support practice learning
Need to determine cost of new arrangements

Implementation

6

Needs to be paced allowing for evaluation not revolution
Too slow in development
Have to involve and get ownership by all
How will arrangements be disseminated and published?

QA Link to statutory
And professional
bodies’ arrangements

5

Role and influence of professional bodies
Use of SQAIF evidence by Regulatory Bodies to inform their processes Rationalisation of standards (Interim/SQAIF) and
Regulatory Bodies
Use of SQAIF against NMC Audit of clinical learning environment required

Concordat agreements
and partnership

3

Partnership working is challenging traditional
Hierarchical and autocratic working/organisations
How many organisations are dealing with health
Issues - a confusing picture emerges
How will integrated standards operate within the
Concordat

Major Review

3

Securing externality if Major Review ceases
Value of Major Review in generating partnerships

Proposed
IT Workshop

3

More information/detail needed

Need to link to QA
Arrangements for medicine

3

Interim standards and PMETB standards need to be integrated
Need to fully engage GMC, RC, GPs, etc.

Avoid jargon and
acronyms

3

Inspection is an outmoded term/concept
Proliferation of acronyms

NHS Changes

2

Employment of staff on completion of courses
Proposal that healthcare education relocates back to direct NHS provision (not higher education institution)
Capacity to deal with further change

Interim standards
workshops

2

More detail required

Need to demonstrate
the case for change

2

Why abandon Major Review when it worked?
Why does the assessment of quality need to change continually?

Local/national
Autonomy & decision
making

2

Using national arrangements to reflect and support
Effective local processes ad procedures