CPD Changing

RE: CPD Changing

Neil Wheadon — Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:14:12 GMT

[quote user="Ian Holloway"]

We've been listening to the various comments and concerns raised by members both here on Vet Surgeon and elsewhere, following Council's decision last week to change the College's CPD policy, and wanted to expand on what those changes are and why they're necessary.

You can read more about this in the response we've just posted on our website.

We'll continue to try to keep everyone as up to date as possible as we fine-tune the details of these policy changes.

[/quote]

With respect, this release says nothing of substance. It talks about the new system having flexibility which we already have.

The only reason seems to be

In addition, our Education Department had received feedback from members of the professions who expressed a degree of confusion over the ‘rolling’ period and found it difficult to keep track of where they were in terms of meeting their CPD requirement within the timeframe.

Errr, what's so tough?? Use the online recording, it adds it all up and everyone can look at it. More detailed reasoning please?

Neil

RE: CPD Changing

Bob Russell — Thu, 20 Jun 2019 14:08:10 GMT

Although I would have to get some logging done ASAP perhaps the real answer is to make the RCVS recording compulsory. Far more valuable than an annual amount.

RE: CPD Changing

Bob Russell — Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:20:24 GMT

As stated above, someone must have done the required amount on a 'rolling average'.

A reminder that I need to update my records!!

RE: CPD Changing

Clive Ansell — Thu, 20 Jun 2019 07:16:11 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]I suspect the RCVS are sick of people trying to avoid CPD by using the 3 year get-out clause. Afterall, even if someone has not done any CPD for many years they have to be given another 3 years before the RCVS can act on it.... Now, they can get stroppy after one year. If I'm honest, I can see the logic....[/quote]

No.

Under the present system, someone who hasn't done any CPD in years is required to complete 105 hours in any rolling 3 years. If they come to light now, they have until the end of the year to complete the 105 hours.

Under the new system, they would only have to do 35 hours by the year end. if anything it makes it easier and lets them off the hook to a point.

Personally, the flexibility has been vital for me. In the past I have taken large chunks of time out, sometimes months at a time, for a variety of reasons. Some years I have had little or no time for CPD, but make it up in the following or preceding years. I haven't sought to avoid it in any way, and average in excess of 50 hours a year.

The new system is a retrograde step in my opinion.

RE: CPD Changing

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 20 Jun 2019 00:59:31 GMT

It's still not good enough. The rule should be that

1 year qualified get 35 hours from PDP

2 years qualified need 70 hours

3 years plus qualified must have 105 hours logged at the end of the registration year or sanctions. If this remains a rolling period we retain the flexibility and make it easy to enforce.

I see a 12 month period is easier, but at a defined point in the year state that the minimum CPD must be met. Continue to allow averaging. No good a 10 year qualified vet having 10 hours logged and promising that they will do the rest in the next 3 years.

The rest is fine, I already record online and allow RCVS access. I have no problem if people get into trouble for not having enough CPD. Quite happy suspending people's registration if CPD not up to date when renewing, if averaged over 3 years. If everyone had to record online then the system could be very simple - do your CPD and log it or stop being MRCVS.

I believe the averaging over 3 years is vital.

RE: CPD Changing

Rob Loxley — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 22:08:52 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Why change? Why reduce flexibility?

Has nobody heard of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'?

[/quote]

Reading the reports, I suspect there are some vets not doing any CPD and coming up with "oh but I have 3 years to do it" and to fix these few(?) issues everyone else is being affected?

RE: CPD Changing

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:11:23 GMT

I suspect the RCVS are sick of people trying to avoid CPD by using the 3 year get-out clause. Afterall, even if someone has not done any CPD for many years they have to be given another 3 years before the RCVS can act on it.... Now, they can get stroppy after one year. If I'm honest, I can see the logic....

RE: CPD Changing

George Pate — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 19:59:09 GMT

really dont see an explanation of why they are required

making it easier for RCVS perhaps

but making it less flexible and harder for the practising arm of the profession

RE: CPD Changing

Ian Holloway — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:37:15 GMT

You can read more about this in the response we've just posted on our website.

We'll continue to try to keep everyone as up to date as possible as we fine-tune the details of these policy changes.

RE: CPD Changing

Bob Russell — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:02:48 GMT

Is a reduction in flexibility really going to improve standards or is it going to inconvenience those that are doing their best to keep their knowledge updated?

RE: CPD Changing

Iain Richards — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:16:24 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]

Can anyone explain why the RCVS are setting a precedent amongst comparable professions such as Doctors, Dentists and Nurses? In a time where 'mind matters' Placing additional pressure on vets and especially GP vets who need to actively source CPD is not something our regulatory body should be doing at the moment.

Neil

[/quote]

Doctors have very similar requirements (plan, record, reflect) plus the joys of re-validation.

I can understand where the college comes from on this as I'm aware that many of the DC cases involve vets who've never done CPD. I sort of feel it is the duty of the RCVS to "DO" something about this. The probelm is that the burden falls on those who are doing. A reward for completing CPD (such as access to RCVS knowledge) might be a good incentive.

RE: CPD Changing

Bob Russell — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:36:38 GMT

Trouble is I am very bad at logging CPD!!

RE: CPD Changing

Clive Ansell — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:55:56 GMT

I typically complete about 50 hours a year, and will continue to log them all.

Assuming the RCVS look at non compliance on a case by case basis, if unforeseen circumstances arise and I cannot complete the 35 hours in any given year, then I think it will be looked upon more favourably if in other years I have >50 hours.

Agree the whole thing is BS though.

RE: CPD Changing

Edward Jones — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:40:41 GMT

It's likely that I will log fewer hours under the new system.

Currently I aim to log around 50-60 hours per year, so if I have a 'bad year' I've got hours banked to fall back on. Under the new system there's no incentive to do this; I will log only 35 hours.

(like most members I do more than this and it's logged informally)

RE: CPD Changing

Thomas Johnson — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:57:27 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]So what if you were planning on undertaking a course that was greater than your yearly CPD allowance and more than 35hrs of time and that your employers had agreed that they would support by using say the next 3 years of CPD allowance (both in financial and time commitments) to benefit both their business and your development? Does that count as 'individual circumstances'? [/quote]

While I agree with you that I don't think there is a need to change the system, there is a problem with your example above and the way the current CPD system works. For example I did a one year modular CPD course in 2016 and did 65 hours of CPD. In 2017, for various reasons including the amount of CPD I'd done the previous year, I only did 10 hours CPD. I'd done 43.5 hours in 2015 so no problem with 105 hours over 3 years. In 2018 I did 39 hours of CPD so again no problem with the 105 hours over 3 years. Unfortunately this year that means I need to do 56 hours of CPD to get to the 105 hours, I will of course do it but the pressure wouldn't have been there if I had had to do 35 hours in 2017.

RE: CPD Changing

Bob Russell — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:22:13 GMT

Why change? Why reduce flexibility?

Has nobody heard of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'?

Someone failing to do adequate CPD before is hardly likely to do it with the changes.

I did not see evidence of consultation of the profession but perhaps it passed me by unnoticed.

Regulate, don't dictate!

RE: CPD Changing

Rebecca Marchewka — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:00:50 GMT

I can't see how this will reduce non-compliance.

I would think that most practitioners do more than their 35 hours and being able to take an average over years gives flexibility for individual circumstances.

What circumstances will be deemed as warranting the discretion of the college and what evidence would need to be provided?

I don't understand what problem this is fixing and it does appear to be against the interests of practitioners who are juggling work and life.

RE: CPD Changing

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:14:56 GMT

[quote user="Chris Barker"]So if you feel that this decision is wholly against the interests of the practitioner then I would urge you to direct complaints to the RCVS Diversity and Inclusion Group,[/quote]

Why should the complaint be directed to the Diversity and Inclusion Group when the decision is wholly against the interests of every practitioner (and, as has been pointed out by others above, against the interests of CPD)?

I did read the whole of your post, Mr. Barker, but I'm clearly missing something.

RE: CPD Changing

Neil Wheadon — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:05:25 GMT

Neil

RE: CPD Changing

Chris Barker — Tue, 18 Jun 2019 23:48:02 GMT

The change to CPD came as part of a package aimed at reducing non-compliance with CPD The actual wording of the agreed change was as follows

Change the CPD requirement to annual requirement of 35/15 hours per calendar year from January 2020.

Allowances will be made for veterinary surgeons and nurses who choose to stay on their respective Register but who take a period out of professional practice for (i) maternity / paternity / adoption leave, (ii) ill-health or (iii) carer responsibilities, providing they can produce evidence of such if requested.

When returning to work after a period of non-compliance all individuals will be expected to provide the CPD Referral Group with evidence of their planned CPD to ensure their future professional competence is adequate.

From another part of the same paper

The group agreed that individual circumstances (e.g. sick leave, parental leave) should be taken into account as long as they are declared as part of the annual renewal. The RCVS Diversity and Inclusion Group will discuss parental leave and CPD at their next meeting.

So if you feel that this decision is wholly against the interests of the practitioner then I would urge you to direct complaints to the RCVS Diversity and Inclusion Group, on which sits the incoming President Niall Connell Members of Council such as Jo and myself will certainly take the comments we have gleaned here and elsewhere to the next meeting of Council

RE: CPD Changing

Kate Richardson — Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:49:45 GMT

So what if you were planning on undertaking a course that was greater than your yearly CPD allowance and more than 35hrs of time and that your employers had agreed that they would support by using say the next 3 years of CPD allowance (both in financial and time commitments) to benefit both their business and your development? Does that count as 'individual circumstances'?

Not a good change as far as I am concerned, despite doing more than 35hours a year on average already.

Jo Dyer can you enlighten us?

RE: CPD Changing

Edward Jones — Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:40:14 GMT

[quote user="emma o'connor"]I certainly would have struggled to maintain 35 hours of CPD whilst on maternity leave. [/quote]

The council papers specifically state that "The group agreed that individual circumstances (e.g. sick leave, parental leave) should be taken into account as long as they are declared as part of the annual renewal. "

There is no indication that there will be specific allowance within the code itself for a compassionate view to be taken for members with extenuating circumstances. i.e. those on maternity leave will be expected to go cap-in-hand to the college to ask forgiveness for breaking the code.

RE: CPD Changing

Miriam Lodewyks — Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:05:50 GMT

Ugh!!!

RE: CPD Changing

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:47:33 GMT

Well, don't tell each other, tell Belgravia House.

RE: CPD Changing

Sam — Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:11:37 GMT

This is daft. Up until now I have been happy to do way more CPD than the 35 hours per year and have known that if for some reason I have a busy year in other ways I could carry some over. Will be less inclined to do extra now and will almost certainly not bother to record any extra hours.... so overall the RCVS will probably "see" a decrease in overall hours on CPD through this move as I suspect many others will not bother to record extra CPD if it no longer counts.