NES Medical Quality Management Group
Date:Thursday 14February 2013
Time:2 pm – 4 pm
Venue:Room 9, Westport, Edinburgh
MINUTES
Attendees:Rowan Parks (RP) [chair], Duncan Henderson (DH),Adam Hill (AHi), Harry Peat (HP), Eileen Peebles (EP)
VC Links:Angela Gregg (AG), Arlene Hurst (AHu), Donna Kelbie (DK), Hazel Scott (HS)
In attendance:Steven Irvine (SBI) [minutes]
Apologies:Gordon Birnie, Mark Bransby-Zachary, Dallas Brodie, Richard Buckley, Simon Edgar, Stewart Irvine, Ronald McVicar, Clare McKenzie (CM), David Reid, Brian Robson, Kim Walker(KW)
ItemAction
1Welcome
RP welcomed participants to the meeting and noted apologies as above.
2Minutes of Previous Meeting –29November 2012
The minutes were accepted as an accurate record of the discussion.
Item 2: KW to provide the map of Trauma and Orthopaedics.
Item 5.2: RP reported that the Vascular Surgery programme will start in 2013 and the sub specialties of Histopathology will start recruiting in 2014.
Item 5.3: The Trainer Survey report is complete and RAG reports are available on the public drive. Data from the survey is being added to the National QM database.
Item 5.4: Up to date email addresses were provided for the PAQ.
Item 6.4: RP advised that MDET had briefly discussed TPD appraisal and confirmed that this should be undertaken by relevant APGD using proforma produced by North deanery.
A summary of the TPD reports completed will be brought to this meeting.
Item 7: DH had provided a reply from Borders.
3Consideration of Matters Under Any Other Business
None.
4Use of TQL Funding
HS apologised for not providing the outcomes from job descriptions. RP stated that in general the money for TQL was well spent. It was felt that it would be useful to have a template for Boards to complete regarding use of TQL funding.
Action: HS to send TQL job description to KW. RP will ask KW to take this forward at the next meeting.
HS/RP
5Deanery Reports
5.1Feedback from the GMC on EoS DR.
DK reported that the team was quite happy with the feedback from the GMC and had responded to the questions about WTD and closing of items.
5.2NoS
AHu reported that the GMC had asked for more information on two confidential items and was concerned about issues remaining open for a couple of years. NoS had responded to the GMC. RP stated that the GMC had picked up on areas of good practice.
5.3SES
AHi thought the GMC goalposts had changed and were asking for more detail than last year and had fed this back to the GMC that they should be clearer around what they want.
5.4WoS
HS thought the GMC had only picked up on mechanistic processes, and what had not been closed off in a set time. HS suggested the GMC needs to move towards a different type of DR with a more global view of training. RP thought this should be brought up under item 7.1.
HS was concerned about the April 2013 DR as the GMC would only ask for serious concerns.
6Education Outcomes Framework
RP advised this was a Department of Health document for England but may be of interest inScotland. The paper was trying to link better education processes to improvements in quality of care.
7National
7.1GMC Review of the Quality Assurance of Medical Education and Training
RP reported that this review had been put out to consultation with a view of producing a final set of proposals by the end of the year. RP proposed to use the response from CM as a starting point to create a draft responseto the eight discussion points:
1: Are the principles the right ones?
The group supported the overall aims but were concerned about the wording, specifically: “to drive improvement”, the group felt this should be “to assist or inform improvement”.
2: Transparency of reporting.
The group fully supported transparency but thought that two reports would be needed: a summary report that would be in an accessible form and a more detailed report.
3: GMC Risk Profiles.
The group were happy about sharing risk profiles when they are mature but was concerned about them becoming league tables.
4: Reporting on Standards.
The group were concerned about the interpretation of the standards and any disruption caused by a new set of standards.
5: Regulatory Sanctions.
The group thought there should be clear written guidelines with a range of sanctions.
6: Comparison of Institutions.
The group thought there should be more information on what markers would be used to compare institutions and how these are reported.
7: Restructure the QA sections of the GMC website.
The group agreed with this proposal.
8: Service Level Agreements.
The group agreed to SLAs but wanted input into the timescales for reporting back.
Action: RP asked for further comments on the proposals.
All
7.2GMC Small Specialties Thematic Review
7.2.1Medical Psychotherapy
There were no concerns highlighted for Scotland but areas of good practice were mentioned. The group felt that the reports were too long and should have focused on specific issues.
7.2.2Occupational Medicine
RP stated that Scotland comes out well in this report, there were a few recommendations: promotion of the specialty, national recruitment and externality at ARCP. Items of good practice were picked up notably: QM being an agenda item for the STB, support in place for Doctors in Difficulty, an established system for QM and less than full time training.
HS commented on the different methodologies used by the GMC and that better communication of what they required would have helped.
The group discussed methods that could be used to QM small specialties/National Programmes in Scotland.
7.3GMC National Training Survey 2013
The group thought it would be useful that completion of this survey to be used as part of the ARCP process.
8Regional
8.1Visits Tracker
8.2Visit Reports
8.3Deanery QM meeting
8.3.1SE QM group minutes: 30 January 2013
8.3.2NoS DQMG minutes: 14 December 2012
8.4GP Trainer/ Training Practice Quality Management
8.4.1WoS GP Specialty Training Committee: 7 December 2012
8.4.2NoS GPQMG: 14 December 2012
The above reports were noted.
9Any Other Business
HS was concerned about the amount of time it would take to produce PAQ reports for all the specialties and sites in WoS. HS thought there should be a consistent approach from all the Deaneries and suggested a web-based interface. The group agreed that reports would not be sent to all TPD/DMEs but sent selectively when a visit has been arranged or where a concern has been identified.
Action: RP to speak to MR/SBI and web services about option of producing a web interface and sending out these reports or highlight the need for additional admin support.
RP
RP suggested restructuring the MQMG meetings and the group agreed to taking all visit, Deanery QM and GP QM reports and to reducing the number of meeting to two per year.
Action: SBI to advise the group of the new meeting dates.
SBI
10Date of Next Meeting
Wednesday 11September 2013
2 pm – 4 pm
Shaw Room, 2CQ, Glasgow
Summary of actionsAction: HS to send TQL job description to KW. RP will ask KW to take this forward at the next meeting.
HS/RP
Action: RP asked for further comments on the proposals.
All
Action: RP to speak to MR/SBI and web services about producing a web interface and sending out these reports, or highlighting the need for additional admin support.
RP
Action: SBI to advise the group of the new meeting dates.
SBI