Agenda for ChangeThe HPA perspective

Steve Harbour

Background

Matching Process went “Live” on 10 January 2005

Key Staff

Stephen Daniel

Jean Dove

Val Player

Brian Ward

Training

4 people have been trained as trainers (2 provisional)

75 practitioners (29 staff, 46 management) have been trained

A&C 23 Scientist/Porton 16

BMS 8 MTO 2

Nurses 8 Senior Managers 16

Agency 2

Progress to Date

Biomedical Scientists (BMS)

% Matching = 87%

5 6 7 8a 8b JAQ

BMS1 92 34 17

BMS2 10 99 7

BMS3 33 9 13

BMS4 2 7 9

Progress to Date

Medical Laboratory Assistants (MLA)

2 3

MLA 65 139

Progress to Date

Medical Technical Officers (MTO)

4 5 6 7 JAQ

MTO 1 3 8 2

MTO 2 19 14 1 2

MTO 3 1 8 6 1

MTO 4 1 1

Progress to Date

Other staff groups have commenced matching – Nurses, scientists, A&C, senior managers

Consistency Checking

The outcomes should be checked for consistency against the following;

• Other Matches completed by the same and other matching panels over an agreed period

• Other local matches within the same occupational group and job family

• Other local matches within the same pay band

• National profiles for the same occupational group and pay band

• “Common Sense” check

Consistency Checking

a. Any apparent inconsistencies in matching should be referred back to the matching panel. The panel should review the match in question and answer any queries or make amendments as appropriate

b. Only when consistency checking is complete and any apparent inconsistencies resolved should the matching form be issued to jobholders......

Review Process

1. If unhappy about the result, individuals or groups of staff can request a rematch with a different panel

2. Request has to be made within 3 months of the notification of the outcome

3. Fill in matching review form

4. No further right of appeal beyond second panel if complaint is about matching outcome

5. If process was flawed, then a local grievance can be initiated

Issues

1. Inconsistency within laboratories

2. Inconsistency between HPA laboratories

3. Inconsistency between HPA laboratories and other local employers

4. Perception that clustering is bad for you

5. Lack of transparency in the consistency process

a. limited feedback to practitioners

b. failure to release original panel paperwork to individuals

c. evidence that consistency has been applied

Issues

6. Inconsistency in advice between (or within) unions

7. Lack of informed debate about Factor 2 (KTE) levels 7 and 8b

8. Composition of panels

a. lack of “expert” member

b. 3-person panels now the routine

9. Review process not to start until matching exercise is complete (could be 6-9 months)

10. New national profiles being released in middle of process

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Sinead Cahill in the AFC Office for the latest

figures