28th November 2016 at 7:04 pm #2916
One of our members is asking about competency documents, links to ESR, how to see staff training records; what works… what doesn’t
this is a great topic for conversation and hopefully the members can start off this forum topic area and keep the discussion (and sharing) going.
Don’t forget to tick the ‘notify’ button below to keep updated with the thread.
paul @ namdet28th November 2016 at 9:38 pm #2921
We offered to link our records up to the ESR system in our trust but were informed that we had TOO MANY RECORDS for them to handle!29th November 2016 at 6:05 am #2922
In Nottingham we have over 440 medical device verified competencies. We are building up a portfolio of lesson plans for each competency. Training is recorded on the eRostering system. I can produce monthly reports detailing per person, per word % of staff with current competency per device. I have set the system up so that the eRostering system ‘warns’ staff three months prior to competency expiring so they can arrange training. We use a system of verified assessment of competency (not self assessment) and use local staff who have been trained to be trainers, companies or training can be accessed through my team of two.29th November 2016 at 8:31 am #2923
We offered to link our records up to the ESR system in our trust but were informed that we had TOO MANY RECORDS for them to handle!
This is like ours.
We have implemented an online competency for nurses recently for the top 8 devices used on the wards, its cumbersome, its unwieldy and its completely dependent on me filling in an excel and monitoring staff movement to ensure they complete it. There have been maybe 2 or 3 ward sisters interested in ensuring staff complete it otherwise it has been an absolute nightmare. In specialist areas it is purely up to the ward matron to keep competency records if they do at all.
Quite frankly I find the idea of medical device competencies borderline pointless, especially when you add in bank nurses and agency nurses who can potter in whenever and use any device they so choose, unless there is a log in at point of use, policing competency is ineffective and far too time consuming.
I have pump training at least once a month if not more but as yet not one person has booked or been booked on even though at least 1 person per ward has deemed themselves not competent in the device.
30th November 2016 at 8:26 pm #2947
- This reply was modified 11 months, 4 weeks ago by alexwhite.
Sorry Alex, whilst I share your frustration I cannot agree that “competencies are borderline pointless”. Staff and managers should be insisting on signed competencies as they are a valuable form of evidence of training and of course competency should the need arise. Many trusts will not allow agency or bank staff to work with devices for which they cannot demonstrate training.1st December 2016 at 1:20 pm #2954
Anyone have any great competancy forms they are happy to share? I think after an IV Study day, a competency should be observed re setting up pumps correctly and signed off?
Also, the same on ward induction doing a suction set up / testing and flowmeter check before being allowed to do? I train RGNs and HCA’s on this (and now been asked to do General Assistants) but at present they do not have a ward competency check, which i think they do need? Anyone already do this?
I have fought hard to get 15 minutes on Annual Clinical Updates, this is my only chance to highlight suction set up / flowmeters and no piped gases in training room to demo / practice.
Thanks1st December 2016 at 3:55 pm #2957
Good afternoon all,
After our IV study Days (2 day package) we give all those that attend a workbook where they need to be observed for 4 occurences of admnisitering IV medition by bolus, via a volumetric pump and a syringe driver. The booklet is then sent back to my colleague and I, we update out database and send the competency onto the education team who maintain the skills database for the whole workforce. I am in the process of investigating if I can have the competency time limited and then refresher training similar to the system described by David090965.
Our current system is labour and time intensive and certainly not foolproof but I am working on it.1st December 2016 at 5:58 pm #2959
Teedle If you want to PM me I’ll happily share some of our training material and competencies.
1st December 2016 at 8:45 pm #2961
- This reply was modified 11 months, 3 weeks ago by BBottomley.
We launched a new IV workbook this year with 12 chapters (From legal through to anaphylaxis) each chapter has its own Q&A section for each. These sections are signed off by their IV mentor on the ward (who has access to an on-line answer-book that is updated regularly). Attendance at mandatory IV study day is then required and a dedicated IV competency section within the workbook with 4 separate IV assessments carried out in the workplace (IV bolus, Gravity infusion, Volumetric Pump, Syringe Pump). Each assessment has learning outcomes, iterative objectives and all mapped against National Occupational Standards, RCN guidelines and best practice for IV therapy….. Its been assessed, reviewed and produced professionally by local printing company … 140 pages and over 20 hours CPD learning…… Willing to share as long as we have proper way of making freely available to all.
paul and team from ABM health board in South Wales2nd December 2016 at 12:28 pm #2962
I would be interested in having a look at your workbook. I have been asked to reduce the 2 day package to 1 day. I think removing the face-face legal and pharmocology elements of the training would be a start. Are you happy to share?
Do you make it a requirement to have completed the booklet prior to attendence, if they arrive without completion what actions do you then take?
Chris2nd December 2016 at 3:18 pm #2963
orry Alex, whilst I share your frustration I cannot agree that “competencies are borderline pointless”. Staff and managers should be insisting on signed competencies as they are a valuable form of evidence of training and of course competency should the need arise. Many trusts will not allow agency or bank staff to work with devices for which they cannot demonstrate training.
Allow me to explain what I mean by the competencies we use, these are not evidence of training or even course completion, they are self assessments of a persons competency with a device. Of course registered training and course completion is important, we have that with ESR, what we have done is create an online ‘competency’ that staff complete a few tickboxes, they are then signed off by their manager as ‘deemed competent’ and thats it, thats how our trust is using the term competency in medical device terms, its not factual recording of training, yes it has its uses but the sheer time spent ensuring people do it, and it has taken up a huge amount of my time, makes it borderline pointless. I am separating competency – training because you can train people it doesn’t always mean a year later they are competent.
Our trust basically goes along the premise of the MHRA where professionals in healthcare that use medical devices are personally accountable and THEY must ensure that they have appropriate training. Now, we as a trust offer the training but we don’t seem to police that in many ways, we do have quite thorough training and limitations for newly qualified and return to acute settings staff but Agency and bank can roll in from outside and pretty much have a ventilated filtered patient as long as they say they’ve had training and deem themselves competent. We have some very bizarre foibles, for example people get told they must do ECG training but can ventilate a patient in ICU without ever having formal training. Now some Matrons, for example ICU are very good at ensuring people are competent, some haven’t a care in the world though to the point where I have sorted out training for their staff.(I’m not saying this is the correct way, I had no say in the matter being very new in post)5th December 2016 at 8:36 pm #2968
I can see where you are coming from Alex. I’m sure most would regard competencies in an entirely different light to that taken by your trust.
On the need for training, whilst the individual does have a responsibility to ensure they are trained, the employer (the trust) is required by law to comply with the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulation 1998. http://www.hse.gov.uk/healthservices/equipment-safety.htm
Part of that regulation requires the employer to make available appropriate training – and the employee to undertake it. Part and parcel of that is to ensure that staff are regularly updated including some method of audit.
It’s a long hard road expanding the areas of good practice to those who deem it less important, I know, I’ve been there. Hopefully it doesn’t involve an untoward incident to get people to listen to you.7th December 2016 at 11:01 am #2971
Thanks for the comments so far. It seems we all have similar difficulties in these roles!
I posted the original request. We record all of our medical device competencies on ESR and can pull reports to show who is signed off and in date but we cannot exclude those who ‘do not require’ the competency in their current role and this skews the figures. We do record on a spreadsheet too but that is a list of staff at a given time when we assess a CSC area and it can change from day to day so is not watertight either! How can you be certain that any evidence you provide for CQC is current and valid? I am also being tasked to provide this info on a monthly basis for our MDMC and with over 6,000 staff (not all nursing and AHPs but a large percentage) it seems impossible. Thanks Sandra7th December 2016 at 4:26 pm #2972
Sandra, we hold all our training records on a separate database built by one of our IT guys. It allows for exclusions both of staff groups (Sister, Physiotherapist etc) and of individuals so should accurately reflect the training requirements of a department. This relies on the departmental manager informing us of the training needs. Each area has one or two individuals approved to record the training so no one person should have a backlog (in theory!) and hopefully this keeps the records up to date. We run an annual, randomised audit of database entries against the paper competency documents that form the evidence of training and competency for CQC etc. To be fair we don’t find many “spurious” entries. An annual audit of training needs is sent to every department which allows the opportunity for managers to review the equipment and staff we have recorded and inform us of any changes not previously communicated.
We provide monthly reports of training to each division broken down by department and equipment as well as progress charts giving a visual representation of training over 12 months, and a new feature is a “league table” with movement indicators.
We also provide a monthly summary of the above to the Health and Safety group with a “Top 10 & Bottom 10” list. A set of divisional training percentages are also required by the trust board for their monthly meetings. It keeps us on our toes!15th December 2016 at 8:29 am #3007
At our large Trust Medical Devices Training/Competencies are part of staffs mandatory training. We currently utilise a very old relational personnel database to record Medical Devices competencies. our Digital Media Team is in the process of building a new web based database that will hold all the competency records for staff and put them against a Training Needs Analysis. the TNA will be able to be done as a whole department, in Teams (HCA, RN, etc) and down to an individual basis. Our Devices are currently split into 4 Risk Categories (Extreme, High, Medium & Low) and each device sits in a Device Type/Category. (i.e. All models of beds and mattresses sit under ‘Beds & Mattresses’ As we document verified competencies for all devices used in the care of the patient (average 28 devices for a ward nurse) this information and the different TNA’s, Risk categories and device type categories was too much for ESR to handle.
The Different Risk categories have different re-assessment timescales attached to them. Extreme = 3yrs, High = 5yrs, Medium = 8yrs & Low = 10yrs. I have Medical device Link Trainers/assessors in each clinical area that can do the sign-offs along with the department leads. These are currently sent using a heavily macro’d excel form, which is then cleaned fed into our old database. I can then pull the raw data and using an excel pivot and some simple formulas provide each department with their compliance. This is a clunky, time consuming process and I am rarely up to date with re-runs of compliance. In the future we plan to give the authorised assessors access to the new system, so that they can input the competencies directly. The system will link to the Trust’s current ‘Passport’ system which all staff have access to via PC’s and an app to view their mandatory and essential to role training/competency records. (They have to be all green at appraisal especially if at a gateway). The department and divisional view of the system will shoe at a glance compliance and reports will be pulled at the touch of a couple of buttons. (I’m keeping everything crossed it all goes to plan).
As far as competency goes, we use 9 standards for all Medical Devices – these can then be used to make more detailed competency documents if required.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.