Rita Training   (This page is also available as a Word document)

One-day workshops on the RITA process have been held since November 2002.

Part of the success of these workshops has been the joint attendance by both trainers and trainees in roughly equal numbers enabling some useful sharing of experience and reflection. 

The overall aims have been to 

•   Increase the level of understanding of the RITA process 

•   Reflect on and discuss issues concerning the trainer/trainee relationship in this process 

•   Debate issues around the assessment of competencies 

We have been very fortunate on two of the three workshops to have received a presentation on the RITA from Selena Gray (November 2002) and Ed Jessop (March 2003).  Ed is on the Education Committee for the Faculty of Public Health and has been very involved in the development of the portfolio and the RITA. 

Some of the issues discussed on the workshops are shown below. 

The next workshop is due to be held on Monday 25^th November 2003 at Gloucester County Cricket Club, Bristol from 9.30 to 4.00.  We would encourage all who have not yet attended a workshop to enrol by contacting  Beth Carpenter.

Overall points discussed during the initial presentation on the Rita Process

1. The need for a two way feed back loop as shown below:
   
         
    

2. The standards of portfolio evidence in terms of quality, depth, range has the ultimate benchmark of “Good enough to be a Public Health Consultant”.

3. What constitutes evidence?

4. Regular meeting dates between trainer and trainee: is there a minimum standard?

5. The need to understand:
       the usage of the forms
       the “jargon”

6. How to ensure fairness and consistency across the counties while remaining flexible to the trainee/situation.

7. The need to involve others in the training

8. How to avoid a paper chase.

9. In a combined tutoring/assessing situation, how to create a good working relationship while keeping an appropriate distance to avoid collusion. Issues regarding failure.

10. The need to review the portfolio to tighten up the criteria, including possibly identifying priorities in the competency framework.

11. Managing the stretch between having objective milestones for the panel against tailoring the process to the individual.

12. The need for a formal talk about the process at the induction programme.  (A suggestion was made that the trainer to attends part of the induction?)

13. Establish criteria for what constitutes a good one to one tutorials.

14. Achieving a balance between activity (quantity) against robustness (quality).

15. Managing the stretch between work requirements v. academic requirements.  Is there the possibility of differing standards?

 

A selection of issues raised re one to one relationship

•    Relationship is the key and needs to be;

–        Professional

–        Have mutual respect involving:

Listening

Trusting

Responsibility on both sides

Positive attitude

•   Accessibility:

–        Face to face

–        E-mail etc.

–        Agreed ‘rules of engagement’

•   Agree a process:

–        Use the log books

–        Review the balance of work

–        Trainer helps the trainee to cope

–        Close with specific actions

–        Discuss behaviour between trainer, trainee and with the organisation.

–        Discussion on standards.

–       Undertake a base line assessment, consider strengths and weaknesses and identify gaps.

•   Flexibility.

•   There is a joint responsibility between service, academic and project trainers; good communication between the three helps.

•   Have systems in place

•   Shared expectations/interested and committed trainers

•   As training progresses teaching decreases, facilitation increases.

•   The trainer as a ‘role model’

•   Making the most of opportunities.

•   Some form of progress testing, “are we were we expected to be?”.

•   Personality and learning styles of both trainer and trainee need to be taken into account
   Overall these form the basis of a learning contract.

Issues discussed during the group work on assessment

• Is it acceptable for the evidence to be a ‘coached’ piece of work or does it need to be a sole piece of work?

• There is a danger in a five-year competency based programme of ‘sign off and forget’ rather than maintain the level of competency achieved.  What sort of revisiting should be included?

• Everyone needs a clear understanding of what should be in the portfolio.

• On some competencies it is not easy to read the standard and some see clearly to require an element of subjective assessment.  Where subjective is concerned, the trainer and trainee need to be conscious of this.

• Trainee should be encouraged to self assess.

• Timescale within which the work is to be completed affects quality and depth: the trainee needs to be questioned about context.

• Looking for demonstration of application.

• Should all work be planned and how much of the work can be ‘retrospective’?

• There sometimes needs to be guidance on what constituted an appropriate volume of evidence.

• There needs to be a balance between achievement of competency and amount of experience.

• How much should the five lines be expanded?

• How much can written work evidence?

• Soft skills more difficult to assess.

•   How much do trainers need to triangulate/validate evidence?

•   Risk of collusion.

•   Good briefing important including Task, timescale, being fit for purpose, do the competencies reflect the job.

•   Talk through (mini viva)

•   How do trainer/trainee record partial and measure gap to completion?

•   Does every competency need to be signed off, should the faculty consider core and desirable?

Back to top of page