Agenda for Change The HPA perspective Steve Harbour.
-
Upload
audra-lester -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Agenda for Change The HPA perspective Steve Harbour.
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