The National Emergency Care ACP Programme & Credentialing

1. The National Emergency Care ACP Programme & Credentialing Prof Rob Crouch @DrRobCrouch Professor of Emergency Care & Consultant Nurse University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton

2. Drivers for Change Demand Workforce Crisis System Changes ENPs MSc in Advanced Practice Generic Clinical signoff? National standard for EC ACPs

3. Developing a pluri-professional workforce ACPs Paramedics Physiotherapists Physician Associates Pharmacists

5. The EC ACP educational programme and competency/curriculum framework • Educational programme: • Masters level (Level 7) education in an advanced practice programme • Competency framework: • Based on the RCEM curriculum and assessment system • Common competencies • Clinical curriculum (Major, Acute and Practical Procedures) • Utilising the NHS e-portfolio system

6. The EC ACP educational programme and competency/curriculum framework • Entry – 5 Yrs Post Reg, 3 Yrs Specialty • Duration 3Yrs • Three pathways • tACP Adult • tACP Paediatric • tACP Adult & Paediatric

7. Accessing ACP Curriculum – RCM & HEE http://www.rcem.ac.uk/Training-Exams/Emergency%20Care%20ACP

10. Credentialing - V - Regulation RCEM – Why?

11. “You have sold out to Medicine” “Where is the nursing?” “What about protection of professional title?”

13. “a process which provides formal accreditation of attainment of competences (which include knowledge, skills and performance) in a defined area of practice, at a level that provides confidence that the individual is fit to practice in that area….” (PMETB, 2010).

14. Credentialing “Confirmation that at a moment in time, an individual has presented evidence that confirms their competence against a specific curriculum” • Not an assessment in itself • Not a qualification • Not a license to practice • Not a panel review of competence • “A line in the sand”

15. ACP Credentialing panel June 16th 2016

16. ACP credential • RCEM certificate • Portable and explicit standard is confirmed But • Credibility • Reputation • (legal challenge) • Panel have a huge responsibility

17. Pilot • Evaluator training • Process • Feedback to ACPs • Documentation • Everything might change except the outcome for the individuals

18. The standard • Explicit • Appropriate • Relevant • Achievable

19. Evolving competence

20. The evidence required • Valid • Proportionate • Acceptable • Reliable

21. The process • Checklist completed by ACP including STR equivalent • Review of portfolio by evaluator- every item on the checklist • Demographics • Probity declarations • Is the evidence present? • Does the evidence confirm competence? • Are there any concerning elements – missing items/negative comments/not achieved competences

22. Potential issues • Not achieved – reason? • Partial achievement – what does this mean? • Achieved – how many times to make this achieved -

23. Final decision • Is the evidence of competence against the ACP curriculum sufficient to say they can be credentialed by the RCEM?? • YES Or • No – not enough evidence – if so – what is missing and what recommendation for resubmission would we make?

24. Feedback to ACP • Positive • Outcome • Future steps – either for re-submission or for career development • Pilot phase– suggestions for improvement to process

27. What next? Dual Credentialing?