|
|
|
Retraining and Review of Performance/Competency |
|
|
|
Retraining and Review of Performance/Competency
Approval Date: April 2008
Review Date: April 2010
Review By: Board of Training and Continuing Education / Continuing Education Program Committee
Purpose
From time to time, the College may receive requests from health services, individuals or authorities such as medical boards for assistance in providing retraining, or for assessment and review of performance or competency of RACMA Fellows.
This policy and procedure outlines the framework by which RACMA approaches these matters.
1. Retraining
1.1 Principles
These policy and procedures for retraining are designed for use in the event of prolonged absence from the workforce, which may occur for a variety of reasons, for example, prolonged illness. In such cases, the Fellow concerned may request the benefit of assessment through a more formal structure, one under the auspices of the College. Alternatively, such requests may come from other authorities such as medical boards.
The aim of a retraining program is to enable the Fellow to achieve the same standard of safe practice as their peers currently working in unsupervised practice.
RACMA receives few requests of this nature, and therefore has focussed on dealing with such requests on an individual basis.
1.2 Procedures
1. Requests for retraining of RACMA Fellows must be made in writing, and directed to the President or Chief Executive. Requests may be lodged by the Fellow or by relevant authorities.
2. Once received and acknowledged, the Censor-in-Chief will oversight the process.
3. In consultation with the Chair of the State/Territory Committee, the Censor-in-Chief will review the retraining request and determine if a retraining program is warranted, based on:
· self-assessment by the Fellow
· adverse events and/or complaints and/or any other concerns raised by the relevant authority
· any other key information
4. If following this review it is considered that retraining is not appropriate, this will be communicated to the Fellow or the relevant authority, giving reasons.
5. If retraining is considered appropriate, the Censor-in-Chief will appoint an appropriate preceptor who is prepared to take on this role. The Preceptor, Fellow and Censor-in-Chief will agree on a retraining program specific to the Fellow’s needs including desired goals and outcomes, timelines, supervision requirements and performance assessment criteria. This will include consultation with the Fellow’s designated supervisor.
6. Part of the requirements of the retraining program may involve presentation for formal re-examination as part of the assessment.
7. At the completion of the retraining period, the Preceptor and Censor-in-Chief will provide a report to Council on the outcome and extent to which the objectives have been achieved.
8. The result of the retraining will be communicated to the Fellow or the relevant authority.
2. Review of Practice or Performance
2.1 Principles
The Royal Australasian College of Medical Administrators is a training and professional development body, and therefore, reviews of performance and/or competency are currently outside of the College’s core mandate.
However, it is recognised that in situations where the performance of a specialist medical manager may have been assessed as unsatisfactory, that the College may be approached to assist in the assessment or review of practice or performance of this doctor. This approach to the College may be made by authorities such as medical registration boards, or by local health service authorities.
Therefore, the Council has agreed that this College will take an active role in working with health services and relevant authorities when approached about the assessment of performance or competence of Fellows.
2.2 Procedures
1. Requests for review of practice or performance of RACMA Fellows must be made in writing, and directed to the President, who will manage the request. It is essential that indemnity arrangements or qualified privilege/statutory immunity cover the assessment procedures.
2. The President will discuss with the referring authority the mechanism by which the authority wishes to assess the performance/competence of the Fellow.
There are two main ways in which this may occur:
i) The authority or health service may propose to manage the process through their own local performance assessment mechanisms, and be seeking the College’s peer input and expertise. In such a case, the President will appoint the Censor-in-Chief to participate in this process, or to identify a suitably experienced and available senior Fellow to represent the College in this process.
ii) The authority or health service may wish the College to undertake the assessment and provide advice to the authority or health service. This situation is less likely that (i) above, based on current experience. In such circumstances, the President will appoint the Censor-in-Chief, the Vice President and the Chairman of the local RACMA Committee to undertake the assessment of performance/competency based on:
· the brief provided by the referring authority or health service
· self-assessment by the Fellow
· adverse events and/or complaints and/or any other concerns raised by the relevant authority
· performance reports from the relevant authorities
4. The outcome of the assessment will be provided to the referring authority or health service and to the Fellow via the President, and will include a conclusive answer about whether there is clearly deficient professional practice demonstrated.
5. The report will not necessarily address how any deficiencies may have arisen.
6. The report may not necessarily delineate a rectification process or requirements at the time, as there may be further consideration required by the authority or health service. However, the College may subsequently assist the authority or health service in this, should it be requested.
Review Arrangements
A review date has been placed on this policy and procedures to ensure they are routinely subject to review. However, given the current incidence of relevant situations, it is proposed that they also be re-assessed following any situation that requires their utilisation, to provide timely feedback on procedures to the President and Council.
Acknowledgements
The following references were used to assist in the preparation of this RACMA policy:
1. Re-Entry Guidelines Following Prolonged Period of Absence from Practice and Retraining Programs for Fellows, Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, July 2006
2. Assessment of Competency – College Statement, Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, November 2006
3. Retraining, Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, March 2001
4. Procedure for Investigation of Allegations of Poor Professional Performance in Anatomical Pathology – Executive Determination, Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, March 2001
5. Standards for Accreditation of Specialist Medical Education and Training and Professional Development Programs – Standard 3.1 Retraining, Australian Medical Council, 2003
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 21 April 2008 )
|
|
CEP