480 likes | 686 Vues
Registrant Council Member Recruitment Workshop. Recruitment process. Clare Mitchell Head of Governance. Council member vacancies. Up to two registrant vacancies Four lay vacancies 1 October 2017 Three or four years Can seek reappointment. Timescale. Closing date - noon 5 April 2017
E N D
Recruitment process Clare Mitchell Head of Governance
Council member vacancies Up to two registrant vacancies Four lay vacancies 1 October 2017 Three or four years Can seek reappointment
Timescale Closing date - noon 5 April 2017 Longlisting – mid April Preliminary interviews (with Saxton Bampfylde) weeks commencing 24/4, 1/5 and 8/5 Shortlisting – mid May Selection panel interviews – 7, 13 or 14 June 2017
Appointment brief www.saxbam.com/appointments using code YZND Introduction to the work of the GDC Role description and person specification (essential and desirable criteria) Terms of appointment (remuneration, time commitment etc) Eligibility The recruitment process (biographies of selection panel members) How to apply
Application Application form available at www.saxbam.com/appointments using code YZND Competence based application form based on essential and desirable criteria in the Appointment Brief CV – 2 sides of A4 maximum NO supporting statement Candidate summary/diversity monitoring form
Shortlisted candidates Shortlisted candidates - References - Due diligence, including current FTP cases and current Registration Selection panel interview
Next steps Recommendation to the Privy Council Notice of recommendation to appoint to the PSA Privy Council make the appointments, including start dates and terms of office
A day in the life of a Council member David Smith Council Member and Dental Care Professional
History of the membership of the Council 1956: 43 members – dentists elected from UK constituencies, members nominated by dental authorities and nominated by the GMC (for policy and standards advice). Led by a President. Gradually increased to 50 members. The Council met in the GMC’s council chambers. 2000: Decreased to 29 elected members – number of dentists decreased from 18 to 15, DCPs increased from one elected by Dental Auxiliaries Committee to four elected by hygienists and therapists, lay members increased from 6 to 10, and CDOs were associate members. 2009: Membership decreased to 24 and led by a Chair. 2013: Membership decreased to 12: 6 registrant and 6 lay (including the current Chair). All members appointed by the Privy Council.
Rationale for changes to Council The Council is not a representative group and is fully appointed Separate Fitness to Practise Committee was established (now there are various committees). Smaller councils/boards operate at a more strategic level – above the operational management of the organisation. Advantages of lay membership – knowledge and experience from other sectors.
Governance environment Department of Health – changes to legislation (Dentist Act 1984). Parliament (UK and Scotland) – Annual Report and Accounts. Privy Council – appointment of Council members among other roles. Professional Standards Authority – assesses performance of GDC and all other health regulators. Chair of the Council – leader of a strategic council/board .
Council member role Strategic leadership of the GDC. Consider matters including financial, strategic, performance, risk, policy, engagement and governance matters of the GDC. Provide challenge and support to each other and the Executive Management Team. Not involved in fitness to practise cases or statutory committees. Council members cannot be statutory committee members.
The Executive Management Team Manages the day to day operations of the business. Full time employees. Led by the Chief Executive and Registrar. Four Executive Directors, Principal Legal Adviser and Head of Communications Attend Council and committee meetings.
Council meetings Council meetings are held seven to eight times per year. Closed and public meetings. Council decisions are often made on work that has already been done by its committees (not FTP committees). Collective responsibility for decisions made.
Council workshops Generally held the day before the Council meets formally. Early engagement in policy formulation. Different ways of engaging with colleagues and staff – group work, brainstorming, informal discussions and other collaborative working methods.
Committees Audit and Risk Committee, Finance and Performance Committee, Remuneration Committee, Policy and Research Board. Generally three to five Council members on each committee. Generally four to five meetings a year. Delegated power from the Council. Opportunity for involvement in the development of work before it is presented to the Council for decision Non Council members with specialist expertise appointed to some Committees.
Council and committee papers Papers are circulated 5 working days ahead of the meeting. Papers are uploaded onto iPads. Papers cover financial, strategic, performance, risk, policy, engagement and governance matters. Papers give background on the matter, how this aligns to the GDC’s corporate strategy and business plan, options for the Council to consider, risks associated with taking/not taking a decision. Papers cover quarterly, annual, and one-off matters. The Council and committees forward plan so upcoming workloads are visible.
Events and speaking engagements Council members may represent the GDC at external events – conferences, seminars, workshops and one-to-one meetings. May include speaking opportunities or being present at a GDC stand to answer questions. Opportunity to engage with registrants: explain a Council decision that might not be popular. Cannot get involved in fitness to practise cases or decisions. Opportunity to engage with some of our external stakeholders.
Our key roles Jonathan Green Executive Director, Fitness to Practise
GDC: a broad overview Who we regulate: 7 groups of dental professionals- dentists, dental therapists, dental hygienists, dental nurses, orthodontic therapists, dental technicians, clinical dental technicians Our primary legislation: The Dentists Act 1984 • Our four statutory functions: • Education and Quality Assurance • Registration • Standards • Investigate allegations of “impaired fitness • to practise” Our Council: 6 registrant members and 6 lay members (all appointed and lay Chair)
Model of regulation Four models of regulation Checking people meet requirements to be on the register Setting and promoting professional standards Ensuring skills are kept up to date Ensuring those qualified are taught the right skills Restricting Registrants ability to practice where necessary
Standards for the Dental Team This documents sets out the standards of conduct, performance and ethics that govern dental professionals
Link to fitness to practise Serious or persistent failure to follow the guidance could see you removed from our register and not able to work as a dental professional. If we receive information which brings your fitness to practise into question ..we will refer to the standards and the guidance to assess whether you are fit to practise as a dental professional.’
Types of concerns might we investigate Misconduct Unprofessional behaviour Poor communication Inadequate record keeping Neglect of responsibility Dishonesty Poor professional performance Convictions and Cautions Health Referrals received from another regulator
Shifting the balance: a better, fairer system of dental regulation Matthew Hill Executive Director, Strategy
Reform strategy Model of regulation needs to change: Difficulty in maintaining support of those regulated: cumbersome and stressful for those subject to enforcement Does not do enough to promote learning; Patient protection benefits unclear; issues take too long to resolve; Not flexible enough to enable a proportionate and graduated approach: reliance on expensive enforcement action; New routes need to be developed so patients not left empty-handed.
Regulating dental professionals Four models of regulation Upstream/ prevention Enforcement Checking people meet requirements to be on the register Setting and promoting professional standards Ensuring skills are kept up to date Ensuring those qualified are taught the right skills Restricting Registrants ability to practice where necessary
Balance of effort Comparison of effort as percentage of GDC total
Agenda for change With patient protection paramount: Shift balance of regulation “upstream” to improve harm prevention Work with the profession and others to improve – and possibly insist on – “first tier” resolution with expanded access to independent complaints resolution Improve “delivery with partners”:join up tools held by others to create more agile, proportionate system “Refocusing FTP” on the genuinely serious and routing other matters elsewhere
Upstream: Using and sharing intelligence Collect, analyse and share data Range of sources: FTP, registration, CQC, NHS, complaints (corporates?), NES etc Inform activity Education/QA Standards development/promotion CPD Better enabling the profession to lead
Upstream: Education and QA Promoting professionalism: engaging with students, registrants and education providers Explain why professionalism important instead of creating fear of sanctions: early test in new “Student Professionalism” guidance Effective use of data and feedback More responsive learning outcomes that reflect real life in the practice
Upstream: Education and QA (cont) Greater involvement in early stages of a registrant’s career Foundation and core training – better guidance/assurance Monitor transition to independent practice Guidance/support for those not in training Work with partners to promote/establish peer support e.g. “Dentists in difficulty”
Upstream: Embedding standards Providing better information at registration/renewal E-learning Using our intelligence Feed back learning from FTP Registrant newsletter, annual report on trends, issues and case studies Better engagement with profession: Face to face (e.g. roadshows): link to CPD Digital engagement – social media; increased prominence on GDC website Work with registrants on product design Build on and improve “Standards in Focus” e.g. development of a mobile app, use of webinars, with Q&A Informing registrants of updates to the site Work with stakeholders/partners Encourage indemnity providers to promote GDC standards in their training Work with corporates to incorporate standards into appraisal systems – support with templates – link to CPD Highlight issues for CQC inspectors to remind registrants of during inspection (e.g. clear pricing) Sharing information and case studies with other regulators
Upstream: CPD Current CPD based on quantity over quality Ideas for exploration: Move to qualitative from quantitative Strong emphasis on PDP with peer review/appraisal Less “checking” by the regulator More emphasis on “interactive” CPD – profession itself is the best learning resource Providing data and intelligence to inform development plans Link CPD to scope of practice
First tier: Improving complaints handling Better outcomes for patients: Enabling the resolution wanted by the patient Encourage feedback in the practice Work with partners to utilise current mechanisms Communicate benefits to registrants – trade press, newsletter, case studies Undergraduate training (QA) and registration Student engagement Profession-wide complaints handling initiative: working group Expanding access to resolution service currently provided through DCS
Better delivery with partners Building on NHS Concerns (in England), replicate with: Equivalents in Scotland, Wales, NI CQC and equivalents Local dental networks and similar – pastoral support (Scotland well ahead) Regulation of Dental Services Programme Board Joint operational protocol between GDC, CQC and NHS England – currently being piloted Joint statement on complaints: same information for patients Look at role of employers in promoting standards
Refocussing FTP Re-articulate serious nature of impaired fitness to practise: reflect in policies/procedures/public interfaces. Focus GDC activity on patient protection and public confidence (shift away from reputation of the profession/”moral compass”). Better use of data to inform decision making. Introduce external calibration reference group with key standard setters – common view of “good enough”. Restore link with the standards (both ours and others’). End-to-end review of FTP processes with stakeholder input.
In summary Feedback learning upstream Harm prevention Working with partners Refocussing FTP First tier resolution FTP process working with patients, the profession & partners ‘upstream’ functions Low cost implications High cost implications
What’s next? Informal discussions over last few months and continuing Debate formally launched – 26 January Seeking views formally and informally Coupled with continuing organisational change within GDC