Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and Registration Issues

AAPT (UK) Meeting held 6th February 2007

On a cold winter day in London, twenty Association members braved the elements to attend a meeting at 12 Coldbath Square to promote the revised CPD scheme and voluntary registration.

The Vice-Chair, James Lowell, was first to speak on the topic of the revised CPD scheme. The aims and objectives of the Association were to “improve the professional, educational and practical standards for Anatomical Pathology Technologists”. The audience were well aware that the profession would be formally regulated in the not too distant future. At first this was happening through the Voluntary Registration Council (VRC), and eventually with the Health Professions Council (HPC).

James quoted from the HPC website, “Put simply, CPD is the way health professionals continue to learn and develop throughout their careers so they keep their skills and knowledge up to date and are able to work safely, legally and effectively”. The Association had introduced a first CPD folder in 2004, but the scheme had now been fully revised by Council to include credits as a base for achievement. The Association CPD scheme “provided national CPD guidance and recording materials to complement any existing in-house training record”.

James continued that “the benefits of CPD were well documented; from the broadening of an individuals knowledge base, to CV enhancement and performance appraisal”. Of significant importance was that evidence of CPD was a requirement for professional regulation by the VRC and ultimately the HPC. The types of CPD activity that would be recognised by the HPC were detailed and noted by the audience.

The Council CPD policy had evolved and James gave an overview of the changes that had been incorporated into the new folder. In general, the scheme was self-regulated by participants at 1 credit per hour of learning. Council were, however, looking at a number of set credits for particular activities. The Association were delighted to announce that on-line learning, known as Read, Test and Reflect, would shortly be introduced and it was hoped this would be a real kick-start for members to participate in the scheme.

James concluded that it was Council CPD policy that the scheme be “based on outcomes” and a strong emphasis would be placed on reflective learning. A CPD Award would be given to those achieving 80 credits over a two-year period, with 40 credits of that amount to be obtained through reflection. To apply for the CPD Award a member should submit all their original recording sheets and evidence to the Association office during two set times of year: 1st February until 31st March and 1st July until 31st August. It was essential that all documents were photocopied subject to posting! These would be examined by the Council-elected CPD Officers.

The theme of Reflective Practice was expanded by the next speaker, Hedley Glencross, the Professional Practice Liaison Officer at the Institute of Biomedical Science. In an entertaining presentation, Hedley described the various definitions of reflective practice from Dewey in 1933 to Loudon in 1991.

Hedley continued that Kolb and Fry in 1984 had theologised on four distinct learning styles; converger, diverger, assimilator and accommodator. Moving on from theory, Hedley spoke of the three elements to reflective practice – Reflection (consideration), Practice (putting this into action) and Learning (knowledge). To reflect was “to look at one’s self and others” and to consider “what is done and why it is done”.

Practice was “the actions by self and others” and “what is done and why it is done”. Learning was knowledge and skills. Hedley expounded on the theme of knowledge and skills explaining the differences between deductive and imaginative knowledge and personal and professional knowledge.

Hedley concluded that “through a process of self-awareness, an individual could identify skills known and skills yet to learn”. Through reflective integration of knowledge and skills, an individual remained a competent and flexible practitioner.

An hour lunch gave ample networking opportunity before the afternoon speakers.

Terry Johnson was introduced as both Chair of the VRC and a Council member of the Association with a “great passion for the education and training of technologists”. The VRC had been set up following the directive from the Chief Scientific Officer, Professor Sue Hill, that non-regulated healthcare scientists become fully regulated and registered professionals.

The ultimate aim was to become a registered profession with the HPC and it was a HPC requirement that professions operate a voluntary register for a period of at least two years. Terry expected that “it reality it would be a lot longer than that!” The HPC also required that a minimum of 25% of the membership of any profession is voluntary registered and, in addition, 25% must belong to a professional body. It was encouraging that, through membership of the Association, the professional body membership target was being achieved.

There would be direct effects on the APT profession. A rationalisation of standards would occur through standards of proficiency, qualification & training, where there was a strong role for the Association, and a professional code of conduct. As voluntary registration evolves into full regulation, practitioners would need to be registered in order to practice.

Many APT staff might enquire “what’s in it for me – why become a registered APT?” It had been highlighted to Terry that “being voluntarily registered had already had an impact in Agenda for Change terms”. Of more long term importance was the equality with other healthcare professions in terms of regulation.

The audience noted the VRC website – www.vrcouncil.org – where applications forms and details of entry criteria could be found. Terry urged all APT staff to “get on board, as the entry level criteria would more obtainable now than it would in the future”.

As a conclusion to the speaker programme, the Secretary of the Association, Christian Burt gave an overview of Council discussion regarding membership structural changes. It was encouraging that the Association were looking at further benefits for the membership – a figure that was approaching 300 members. Full proposals for changing the grading structure would be brought before members in due course – this was likely to be the 1st September AGM.

A lengthy question and answer session with the panel of speakers brought the day to a close. James was keen to emphasis that “no individual would in any way be penalised for lacking the number of credits for the CPD award”. Questions were raised on the backdating of CPD credits. From a registration point of view, it was expected that activities occurred within “a two-year time frame” would still be suitable.

Members of the audience requested further examples of recorded reflective learning and it was expected that a new learning area, as part of an overall website review, would shortly be introduced. In all, the response to the meeting was extremely positive and it is hoped this will be just one of several CPD-creditable events run by the Association in 2007.

Christian Burt
AAPT (UK) Secretary

Presentations

A Revised CPD Scheme, James Lowell (131K)
Reflective Practice, Hedley Glencross (298K)
Voluntary Registration, Terry Johnson (328K)
A new Membership Structure, Christian Burt (573K)