the panels in which they have participated. So, while some form of monitoring is taking place in all also be understood that any LETBs/deaneries, its form and function varies significantly. enhanced role is likely to have resource implications. Only three schools report that they use patient, as opposed to lay, advisors in QM. More detailed questioning would The GMC should bear in be needed to find out what precise role patients play. mind that not all colleges will be in a position easily to fund GP schools were also asked if they had any other thoughts on the value or otherwise of external representatives. significant additional activity. Responses focused on lay advisors and comments were positive: lay people are particularly good at reminding GP In conclusion, it is our view school teams of the core purpose of the activity in which they are participating; they are seen as useful in that a broader consultation by contentious decisions, in particular in relation to QM visits and ARCP appeals, and in supporting “authenticating” the GMC, and national the school when there are pressures from national organisations which may compromise training quality. It was not guidance may be needed in a surprise to hear that, while on the one hand some schools support lengthy appointments for lay people, thus relation to externality in the giving them the time to build up expertise and relationships with the GP school, others caution against lay advisors QA and QM of undergraduate becoming too close to the work of the school which risks their losing their true externality. and postgraduate education Table 2: COGPED 2010 survey of externality in GP school quality management more widely, not just in relation to the role of colleges in the QA of curricula and assessment delivery, and in particular on the role it should play in deanery/LETB QM/QC. Please provide any comments on the results of assessment of the Progression Reports published by the GMC
the panels in which they have participated. So, while some form of monitoring is taking place in all LETBs/deaneries, its form and function varies significantly. Only three schools report that they use patient, as opposed to lay, advisors in QM. More detailed questioning would be needed to find out what precise role patients play. GP schools were also asked if they had any other thoughts on the value or otherwise of external representatives. Responses focused on lay advisors and comments were positive: lay people are particularly good at reminding GP school teams of the core purpose of the activity in which they are participating; they are seen as useful in “authenticating” contentious decisions, in particular in relation to QM visits and ARCP appeals, and in supporting the school when there are pressures from national organisations which may compromise training quality. It was not a surprise to hear that, while on the one hand some schools support lengthy appointments for lay people, thus giving them the time to build up expertise and relationships with the GP school, others caution against lay advisors becoming too close to the work of the school which risks their losing their true externality. Table 2: COGPED 2010 survey of externality in GP school quality management also be understood that any enhanced role is likely to have resource implications. The GMC should bear in mind that not all colleges will be in a position easily to fund significant additional activity. In conclusion, it is our view that a broader consultation by the GMC, and national guidance may be needed in relation to externality in the QA and QM of undergraduate and postgraduate education more widely, not just in relation to the role of colleges in the QA of curricula and assessment delivery, and in particular on the role it should play in deanery/LETB QM/QC. Please provide any comments on the results of assessment of the Progression Reports published by the GMC