European Curriculum and Assessment Project EuCAP
Background
In recent years Trauma and Orthopaedics in the UK has gained extensive experience in the development of training skills, assessment tools, curricula and online portfolios for UK trainees. Some of this experience has already been shared with other European groups at the invitation of the European Board of Orthopaedic Trauma (EBOT). This has been welcomed by all participants in EBOT, especially those smaller European nations who have fewer resources to develop such things for themselves. The BOA and Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (RCSEd) have already responded to a request from Estonia to provide training for orthopaedic trainers, and a very successful course was run there in March 2009. Following on from that success there are other countries who would like to participate in such initiatives. The purpose of this paper is to begin to articulate plans and projects to facilitate future collaboration.
Aim of project
To improve the quality of orthopaedic training in Europe through international collaboration on curriculum development
Objectives
- To share the UK experience in curriculum development with interested European partners.
- To support interested partners in the development of their own curricula in T&O.
- To harmonise standards of training and assessment across Europe.
- To collaborate on the development of resonant international curricula to the extent that this facilitates the sharing of other resources (expertise, labour, etc) between partnering countries.
Practical Projects
The following are not intended to be in any specific order although it is clear that some will have to take precedence and priority over others. Each project will need a detailed outline. Some projects may have major benefits and attract UK dept health interest.
Strategic needs analysis
A survey of orthopaedic training in partner countries going beyond previous questionnaire based initiatives
- Structures of training
- Present tools and protocols
- Data protection and other possible constraints
- Patterns of operating and service delivery
- Existing trainertraining and curriculum development initiatives.
- Unique features, opportunities and constraints
Collaboration and curriculum design.
To use the experience and learning from the UK in helping partnering countries to appreciate the principles and skills required to develop valid assessment tools, syllabi and other aspects of a surgical curriculum.
Design and implementation of assessment tools.
To share the procedure based assessment tools designed in UK Orthopaedics and now in use by all UK surgical specialties with a view to the adaptation of these tools and piloting using an online portfolio system.
Establishing a European surgical logbook.
To establish a logbook which responds to the needs identified in earlier projects whilst overcoming any constraints also identified. This may be in the form of an online logbook or it may be in the form of a paper-based logbook which reflects the online structure. This will largely depend on the data protection constraints (which are likely to be complex) in individual countries.
Developing trainer skills
To develop both modularised face-to-face training programmes and online resources to support the development of the trainer skills needed to deliver a new curriculum effectively.
Developing a “leadership” syllabus
In the UK matters of professional values, leadership and management skills are the subject of considerable debate. In this project we will utilise the fruits of that debate as the basis for exploring leadership and management skills as part of a European-wide curriculum.
Issues to be discussed and debated
Partners
We need to be clear at the start on the key partnerships and governance structure of such a project.
British Orthopaedic Association (BOA)
The BOA is the natural key partner from the UK point of view. The authors of the T & O curriculum assigned the copyright to the BOA who have championed the OCAP project from the beginning.
Royal colleges
We will not at present pursue a partnership with any individual college but will seek to keep them informed as the project becomes established.
T & O Specialist Advisory Committee (SAC)
The SAC will need to be involved not only as key stakeholders in OCAP but also because they will wish to be beneficiaries of the pan European relationship, participating alongside other European groups. Care should be taken in defining whether it is the SAC or its umbrella organisation JCST which is involved.
European Board of Orthopaedics & Trauma (EBOT)
EBOT are the obvious lead partner, especially during the presidency of John Albert. Clarity should be sought as to the nature of the parent organisation (UEMS’) role.
National groups
Estonia have expressed interest and both Aare Märtson and Thomas Tein have put in considerable work already. Finland has expressed interest and have already extended an informal invitation for Training the Trainers. The French representative at the Edinburgh EBOT meeting was completely enthusiastic. A review of OCAP was very well received by the German programme directors in January 2008.
Academia
It is apparent that we may also need at least one academic partner in order to access certain types of funding. Possibilities here might include the academic unit at Wrightington or the RNOH at Stanmore.
Commercial
EU funding may require the involvement of a commercial partner. This should be managed openly and with great care to ensure that such relationships are appropriately governed. An obvious commercial partner would be Andrew Lamb in his freelance capacity whose expertise would be invaluable. The project mayalso attract large funding from the orthopaedic industry if targeted in the proper way.
European Foundation for Orthopaedic Research and Training (EFFORT)
EFORT may also be considered as a partner. It has a considerable infrastructure and could possibly offer funds through the EFORT Foundation.
Clarifying interests
It will be important to thoroughly discuss the interests of any individual or group before they are brought into the partnership. It may be in their short-term interests to utilise products already developed but in the long term it may serve their interests better to have such products redeveloped for a European-wide community. It must be clear if individuals are partners as themselves or as representatives of an organisation. This will become particularly important where European funding is concerned.
Funding
The projects have been outlined in such a way as to make them flexible to apply for grant funding under a number of different headings from different European bodies. Even in the current economic climate it could be worthwhile to approach some of the larger implant companies especially to attract funding for the early phase of the exercise in getting the overall project established. There are a number of bodies in the UK who fund such activities, the most notable of which is JISC. These bodies often use academic institutions and only offer funding in response to specific “calls”. It is likely that this approach is mirrored in other European countries; hence the collaboration may need to be with individuals who also have an academic link. Some contact has already been made with the Leonardo project but this has highlighted the need for expertise in grant applications.
Project office and location
The project will inevitably require a physical location even though the team for the project will inevitably be a virtual one. Consideration should be given as to whether that project office should be in the UK or it may be better to simultaneously establish offices in each of the partner countries, even if this is only a mailing address.
Positioning, networking and publicity
A shortfall of the existing OCAP programme has been to neglect conferences and publications. This should be rectified and provision made from the start for a programme of publications and presentations alongside a web presence from the beginning.
Next steps
The project is still in its early stage of formation with partnerships being explored and formed. The BOA council should be briefed on progress at the earliest opportunity as a prelude to exploring funding options.
David Pitts, John Albert, David Finlayson
14th august 2009
1