2025 Scientist Training Programme core curriculum review

Current priority areas

• 10 Year Health Plan for England: fit for the future
• Science in healthcare: Delivering the NHS Long Term Plan – The Chief Scientific Officer’s strategy

Stakeholder feedback

Feedback collecting through the Curriculum Library survey collected between January 2024 and November 2025. All stakeholder feedback is presented verbatim.

S-C1 Professional Foundations of Healthcare and Clinical Science

Module aim

• I’d like to add my vote in favour of the discussion on adding sustainability, preferably to both the core and specialist modules.
• This module need more clear guidance on what is expected. There is a large variation on what trainees believe is required to complete this module. It can be individualised to a trainee however some are taking on elements that just require attending a short workshop while others are completing work that is more similar to a rotation.

Training activities

• 6 – This seems over-ambitious for STP level! It’s not something I have ever done in my 20 year career – better suited for HSST curriculum I feel.
• 7 – Multi-source feedback (MSF) are an excellent tool to help trainees see how they are progressing – however myself and colleagues have found them very difficult to complete for trainees who are in the first year/just in their second year. The new curriculum has taken the majority of the science content out of the curriculum, trainees are also no longer doing little research projects etc, so it is difficult to be able to comment on the majority of topics in the MSF. Leadership, teamwork, scientific ability, writing. Please keep MSF but please urgently review the topics we are scoring them on as we simply cannot do this anymore with the new curriculum in place.
• 7 – I think there should be a requirement to complete a MSF at the end of the first year _and_ end of the second year – to co-inside with annual appraisals and the new assessment policy
• 12 – As a trainee, multi professional working is a given in all roles. This competency just gets combined with another and adds more work trying to hit considerations that aren’t always relevant to the main competency.
• 14 – Environmental sustainability should be considered during the evaluation of innovations, ensuring environmental as well as financial costs are considered.
• 15 – Seems overly ambitious for STP level -better suited to HSST curriculum. It’s not something that would naturally arise during 3 years of working in Radiotherapy Physics.

Direct Observation of Practical Skills (DOPS)

• All – I feel the DOPs and OCEs in this module are quite centric towards trainees in a patient facing role. There is not much flexibility for specialisms such as histopathology in which we do not face patients, and our choices are rather limited. It would be useful for us to have some options which are broader IE leadership within the lab team, running a clinic autonomously, providing training etc.
• Expectation to complete 4 CBDs with no indication of what these should be about leaves too much room for interpretation with assessors. Difficult as a trainee and assessor to know what can and can not be used for these.

Observed Communication Events (OCE)

• All – I feel the DOPs and OCEs in this module are quite centric towards trainees in a patient facing role. There is not much flexibility for specialisms such as histopathology in which we do not face patients, and our choices are rather limited. It would be useful for us to have some options which are broader IE leadership within the lab team, running a clinic autonomously, providing training etc.

Academic learning outcomes

• 1 – This doesn’t necessarily apply to the STP modules, more to the university hosting the masters component. However, as a second year trainee in medical physics I would have appreciated an emphasis on teaching competency in Excel (including macro scripting etc.) which I have found to be much more important in the workplace than Python coding (though teaching in both would be ideal!).

Another element of a module

• Having studied on the new curriculum and recently moving into my band 7 post, some of the first project work I have been asked to undertake are clinical risk assessments, validation and verification work as well as performing Duty Biochemist (DB) when business continuity plans (BCP) require implementation. These are essential jobs for band 7 clinical scientists and none of them are addressed in the curriculum anywhere. Given that most band 7’s will be DB early on in their post, practicing safely when dangerous scenarios arise is surely something that should at least be discussed with the trainees who are close to finishing the program? Personally I thought across the whole curriculum, I learnt very little from performing training activities, these essential skills surely need a new form of assessment to at least introduce STP’s to the essential components of band 7 work.
• I attempted to submit this form to provide feedback on another section but I cannot, so will append here. I would be really interested to gauge how people view training activities. Personally as mentioned previously, I cannot remember 90% of the work I did for training activities across the whole curriculum. In comparison, I distinctly remember all the OCE’s, DOPS and CBD’s performed over the three years. The current format of training activities, actively encourage trainees to copy out of kit inserts and textbooks and this is not useful learning experience. When I look at the competency assessments that UKAS expect laboratory/clinical staff to follow, they encourage critical thinking, safety prioritisation and escalation when information is not understood. How are the STP training activities so far removed from these essential skills that are critical to performing the day job.
• Since there is a wider directive towards including sustainability into all medical training, can I suggest that it is included somewhere within the STP training. This could be very light touch, or it could be the trainee either 1) demonstrating that they have considered sustainability within a research/QI project, or 2) committed to training in this area, or 3) provided a reflection on some aspect of clinical laboratory sustainability practices/current progress
• please consider a specific module on the impact of climate change on healthcare
• As the NHS works towards its goal of becoming Net Zero by 2040 (Health and Care Act 2022), the impact of climate change and extreme weather on patient health is becoming increasingly clear, as is the environmental “footprint” of healthcare itself. As the IPEM Environmental Sustainability Special Interest Group, we recognise that new entrants to our professions will be required to plan, carry out and evidence their own contributions furthering the organisation’s Net Zero aims. It is of utmost importance that we adequately prepare the future workforce to meet this challenge.

S-C2 Research Skills in Healthcare Science

• Trainees are expected to learn about how to carry out research but few graduate with the skills to start a research project, in particular applying for grants. I would like to see a module around starting a research project and applying for funding for all healthcare science specialisms.

S-C3 STP Project

• no feedback received

S-C4 Individual Professional Development

• no feedback received

Changes made

Module level changes

Major changes

Programme level changes

• no changes made

Periodic review

This specialty curriculum requires significant change beyond the scope of an annual review.

Response – no

Rationale

Please provide an overview of the rationale for why the proposed changes are needed or why changes were not needed, with reference to stakeholder feedback.

Response

• Professional Foundations of Healthcare and Clinical Science
  • Changes to the academic indicative content have been included in response to changes in the 2024 edition of the HCPC SOPS which give greater prominence to these areas.
  • The OCE text has been changed to provide additional clarity on the purpose of the assessment for all specialties. There are frequent questions about this OCE, as highlighted by the feedback, particularly from non-patient facing specialties who feel they cannot complete this OCE.
  • The timing and content of the MSF was discussed in response to feedback. It was decided to make no change to the timing of the MSF in the training activities, as MSF access allows flexibility to link additional MSFs to other progression and HR activities, if beneficial. The MSF content was reviewed and updated.
  • Training activity 19 and supporting indicative content was updated to reflect the increasing importance of data management skills and awareness for all healthcare professionals.
  • Sustainability and environmental impact were discussed, additional content was included in the quality of practice and improvement indicative content.
  • The additional feedback received on the module was reviewed and discussed, it was agreed no change was required for training activities 6,12,14 and 15, and the guidance for CBDs found in the Work-based Assessment Standards was deemed to be sufficient.
• The remaining feedback received was reviewed and discussed; specialty specific content is not included in the core modules, for module S-C2, Research Skills, the content included on financing research was agreed to be appropriate for this stage of practice.

I confirm I have reviewed the Reflective Practice Guidance for ETAs and DTAs and have made any changes necessary.

Specialty Lead Editor signature: Jane Lynch, EMma Bowers, Namir Al Hasso, Lisa Ayers, Owen Driskell, Chanelle Peters
Date: 12 December 2025

Change control - completed by the school

Programme structure

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 5 December 2025

Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) mapping

• M7 and M8 result in changes to the LO mapping to the HCPC SOPs, however all SOPs remain mapped.

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 5 December 2025

Major change stakeholder survey

Feedback from stakeholders on the proposed major changes was collected through a survey between 16 January and 8 February 2026.  All stakeholder feedback is presented verbatim.

Total respondents: 135

Major change: M9 and M10

Do these changes provide beneficial skills and knowledge to trainees?

• Yes: 101
• No: 27
• Can’t comment: 7
• Please tell us why you don’t think these changes will provide beneficial skills and knowledge to trainees
  • We don’t generally review data management as part of our role, however, we do regularly perform audits which we have used to fulfil this previous training activity.
  • in radiation safety and diagnostic radiology patient data is not typically gathered or used greatly by the department. This would make the training activity more of a box ticking exercise rather then a useful in the department.
  • “Not any more so than the original training activity wording. I prefer the openness for options of the original training activity – the new wording is very specific to use of data . I am not against the idea of honing in on improving use of data because there is a great need for this in the NHS. If the change is going to be made and the focus is going to be on use of data, this could be expanded to say patient, staff or medical device data (or maybe just ‘data’). Not all clinical science specialisms link directly to patient data. Within clinical engineering, staff data could be training records for example and there could be benefits yielded in how medical device asset management data is utilised. Another option could be the original wording plus additional emphasis on trainee including recommendation on how data should be used to measure the change. The additional academic indicative content is worth adding and applicable to either TA wording.”
  • My home department does not use patient data.
  • Training activity 19 is better as it was.  All trainees need to be involved in departmental improvements.  The alternative suggestion related to data management is covered by specialist competencies
  • The current TA19 is more useful. The addition of environmental impact in the other section is fine though.
  • For 19 the original competency was direct and easy to achieve the amendment is a little woolly and less directed – if you want people to use data ask them to do a data project or something defined. Not descriptive For the second one as long as its clear how they achieve this then that is fine”
  • Not really applicable to Clinical Biochemistry, all patient data is managed on one EPR system for the Trust
  • I think the original training activity is much more beneficial as gets the trainee starting to think about areas such as quality improvement. I’m not sure what the proposed change adds. It will also be hard for those in non-patient facing roles to do. I’m struggling to think how may trainees would approach this.
  • “I really enjoyed TA19 during my studies and it probably sparked my interest and journey into Quality improvement, Efficiency, Service Improvement, PDSA cycles etc. and also was a real opportunity to own a project and drive change in my department, helping in my transition from very much a Trainee into a more established member of staff with the confidence to perform audit, suggest change and then bring about that change. The TA as it currently is provided me with the skills and confidence to suggest, plan and implement change/quality improvements which is a crucial part of the job of a clinical scientist (in laboratory based roles at least). It gives trainees a really good and valid ‘excuse’ to do this sort of project which can also be a problem in some centres. This TA also provides trainees with real-world experience, and is something which is useful to have when at the end of the STP to discuss and/or draw on skill-wise.”
  • “The proposed training activity would have been a possible piece of work to complete under the current wording.  With the proposed wording there is reduced scope for the trainee to complete work that interests them and is of benefit to the department. I think it will result in many trainees replicating work of previous trainees to no benefit of the department.  I do not see how “”environmental sustainability”” has been embedded in this training activity.  “
  • The current one is more open to interpretation and can be suited to any subject, whereas the second is only suited to those that actually handle patient’s data. We that are on the pharmaceutical science route don’t even interact with patients, but we know that everyone forgets and doesn’t care about pharmaceutical science.
  • This is not relevant to our work as we are not a patient facing department. This is much narrower and will only apply to a few specialisms. It is better to concentrate on relevant practice rather than on other departments’ work.
  • “The changes appear to be very superfluous, the previous wording is more direct and explanatory. Setting the focus on data management rather than a general task is restrictive and will not help trainees as they will not have the flexibility that ensures they are fully engaged with the task at hand.
  • Adding in an environmental impact measure is OK in terms of quality improvement but is not going to add anything to the students’ understanding of NIR, and it is covered elsewhere (as is data mabnagement in the clinical environment)”
  • Yes on one way but You have taken out review a process which could be a pathway and not necessarily data and replaced with data. We need both things and this is at expense of the other
  • Training Activity 19 in Diagnostic Radiology we do not directly handle our own patient data, so feel that trainees and our department would benefit more from the current task of improvements within our department
  • This has fundamentally changed (and narrowed) the scope of this TA from a quality improvement focus to a data management focus. Trainees in some specialisms will struggle to complete this.
  • The unrestricted nature of the original title is valuable. Some training activities already include patient data handling in the radiotherapy curriculum
  • Improve a task is a far more active TA. It actually helps you make an benefit for the department and you can actually focus on something that is interesting to you or important for the department. The proposed is fine for the first STP to do it in the department but what about if you have multiple in the cohort or the year after. You’ll just all end up saying the same things.
  • The changes to the academic indicative content is good, makes it more comprehensive. However, there is not a large amount of dealing with patient data in my specialism and some others. This will make the activity much harder to complete – could there just be a comment under the existing activity that gives ‘management of patient data’ as a suggested activity?”
  • within medical physics, most the time we do not deal with patients or with patient data making it difficult to complete this task
  • Maybe, but at the detriment of what’s being lost in the original TA around more general improvement/change management.
  • The original TA was more relevant
  • I don’t think so, we don’t use patient data as much as other specialisms. Risk communication TA and Patient dose TA already cover how to use patient’s data.
  • The previous task involved actually implementing a change, not just recommendations. Trainees need to go through the process of making changes. This change removes skills and knowledge that would be learned.
  • It narrows down the field of what trainees can find improvements for to just patient data, I think it is more beneficial to give trainees a bit of freedom on what they would like to improve in their department. However I do think considering the environmental impact and patient data as part of this training activity is important and benifical.
  • I think the original training activity is more relevant to scientific practice

Do these changes address a need in your workplace?

• Yes: 74
• No: 33
• Can’t comment: 28
• Please tell us why you don’t think these changes will address a need in your workplace
  • We don’t generally review data management as part of our role, however, we do regularly perform audits which we have used to fulfil this previous training activity.
  • see answer above
  • I think the previous version was better as most of the work we do is not directly with patient data.
  • The service improvement one was quite nice. We already cover data usage under other studd
  • We do not use patient data in a large capacity in out department
  • Tasks and processes are routinely reviewed in our department so training activities to propose a change/make better use of data can be difficult as changes are already continually being made. The inclusion of environmental impact is beneficial as this is becoming of increasing importance.
  • the more generic TA19 is more helpful
  • Data use to that level is not very applicable to us
  • All patient data is managed on one EPR system for the Trust
  • There is no need to change this training activity. The new one doesn’t address any need we currently have.
  • All of these additions are already part of standard practice. However, I am very happy to see them added to the STP curriculum.
  • TA19 -TA in subject section already covers data flow/management in the department.  The Original TA provided an opportunity to find something that could be improved in an area of interest to the trainee.  This is more empowering for the trainee and probably has more benefits for the department.
  • The change does not address anything that would impact positively on our workplace. I think this change would risk this TA becoming a TA that is more of a ‘tick box’ exercise than anything else, and not applicable to a lot of Trainees, especially those not in patient facing roles. If you are having to change this I would suggest something along the lines of “Based on patient data review or clinical audit finding, find a task or process in your department…..”
  • With the proposed wording there is reduced scope for the trainee to complete work that interests them and is of benefit to the department.  I think it will result in many trainees replicating work of previous trainees to no benefit of the department.
  • There are more things that need improving within my workplace instead of patient’s data. We use systems and applications that manage patient’s data; we don’t have a say in how it is handled.
  • This new TA is very general and would duplicate many other TAs in Medical Physics – I prefer the previous TA that represented something more unique/useful that trainees can do for our department.
  • As above – not relevant to our work.
  • They are uneccesary as the subjects are already sufficiently covered
  • “patient data” is quite vague and in bioinformatics, we mainly do things pseudonymously, so what is considered patient data might be unclear. Is this patient-identifiable data only or data relating to patients more broadly (which would be easier to implement in our specialism)?
  • Patient data not the most relevant area for improvement in our department
  • Do not take away TAs that actually involve some creativity.
  • Patient data is not used in the radiation safety department
  • patient data is not often used
  • We don’t typically handle much patient data in our line of work, except on one-off occasions. It is hard to see how to implement “how to make better use of data to improve service delivery”.
  • For bioinformaticians in our department, this is covered across the entire STP, so doesn’t add anything for them. Other trainees (Genomics, Cancer Genomics) get enough exposure to this.
  • See above
  • The existing TA ‘find a task or process which you can improve…’ allows for flexibility in how this TA is interpreted and applied, allowing it to be tailored to the department’s needs at the time. I don’t see a need to change this.
  • The change is essentially to do an audit, which is already addressed in a different PF TA. Also using patient data better doesn’t make any sense in our context.
  • Might be very hard given years of trainees for new trainees to identify a useful change
  • The proposed change seems to be a specific example of an improvement, I’m not sure this needs to be narrowed down to this area of practice only. Keeping the TA more broad would give trainees more options to provide evidence for a range of tasks in the scope of their specialism and practice
  • I think the original training activity better meets service needs as it allows trainees to make real improvements to workplace practice and learn how to navigate and complete the relevant quality procedures for recommending and implementing change

Would your workplace be able to deliver the programme with these proposed changes?

• Yes: 108
• No: 6
• Can’t comment: 21
• Please tell us why you don’t think your workplace would be able to deliver the programme with these proposed changes
  • The lack of available patient data would make TA 19 very difficult or require completion in a different department.
  • The Clinical Engineering department does not have any access to patient information or clinical data directly and so this would be challenging to complete within my own department. If this was perhaps changed to ‘Review how patient data is managed and used in a clinical department and provide recommendations about how to make better use of data to improve service delivery’. This would make it non-specific to your department and so for trainees based in a non-clinical department with no access to patient data, they could then complete this elsewhere.
  • We would need guidance on what you would require and how to approach this.
  • Because we cant do it. It doesn’t need improving.
  • This would be extremely difficult as patient data is not used in our department.
  • “The change to academic content looks useful. However, the change to TA 19 would be difficult to implement in our department because we have very little interaction with patient data.”

Would you feel safe if someone who completed the programme, including these changes, was involved in delivering health care for you, within their scope of practice?

• Yes: 117
• No: 1
• Can’t comment: 17
• Please tell us why you wouldn’t feel safe with someone who completed the programme, including this change, was involved within their scope of practice, in delivering health care for you
  • You have removed another important thing we need as an essential to do this

Do you have any further comments on these proposed changes?

• No
• I think training activity 19 is fine as it is, but the proposed change is suitable too
• Difficult to see how it fits with Radiation Safety and Diagnostic Radiology
• I like the existing TA. I have concerns about removing the only TA that relates to “how you implement a change” as this is a key think that our clinical scientists understand (and a really good thing to assess on on the final assessment). The proposed change appears to remove this requirement. It will be harder to deliver this- I think we would have to create a resource/training sessions to cover this for all trainees (up to 11 per intake) – rather than allowing each individual trainee to gain an understanding of implementing a relevant change in the workplace.
• The changes to the academic indicative content are sensible, and I would support a full Training Activity on environmental impact in the future.
• It may be helpful to add in consideration of how genomic data is managed nationally and globally too – having insight into how data is managed in a department level and how this can appropriately feed into the wider databases would contribute to solving problems with standardisation of medical data – especially data around patient phenotype
• In the academic indicative content instead of “Culture” , it will be better to highlight “Workforce diversity” or “Understanding of Diversity and inclusivity” . Also, “Understanding and implementation of organisational values” should also be a core learning.
• Right now the Trust has data (for example with ProKnow databases for EBRT/brachytherapy data from different trusts) but I’m not sure it’s being analysed or used effectively for the purposes of improving patient care and service delivery.
• Strongly support the inclusion of environmental sustainability. Slightly concerned that the restriction of the “task or process” to patient data management. There are areas that do not directly involve patient data that are nevertheless very relevant. Since data management is now included in the indicative content, would it be better to reverse the restriction of the TA itself to the more general “find a task or process”?
• I do think considering data management is beneficial however it seems a little restrictive for trainees to only focus on that area as a potential change. There may be other changes they would like to suggest to the department and this training activity gives them a great opportunity to do this.
• a more easily attainable task that the previous
• It appears to be two different tasks despite having similar learning outcomes
• I think the proposed change is worse
• The proposed change to Training Activity 19 is a narrowing of the scope, which is potentially not beneficial to non-clinical departments where the management and processing of patient data is not a large part of what they do.
• Removal of the implementation of change risks further direction of travel towards this programme being an academic exercise rather than setting up the leaders of the future – there is no service that does not currently require change to be implemented.

Lead Editor response

• M9 – edit and apply change
• M10 – apply changes

Please provide a brief rationale for your decisions:

As suggested by the stakeholder feedback, removing the restriction of using patient data broadens the scope of the training activity, making it more accessible. The data focus on data has been retained, in keeping with ambitions of the 10-year plan for greater data literacy for all healthcare professionals and particularly recognising the unique role of Clinical Scientists in this shift.

Specialty Lead Editor signature: Jo Horne, Jane Lynch, Stuart Sutherland
Date: 13 February 2026

Specialty Lead Editor signature: EMma Bowers
Date: 17 February 2026

Major change - edit change control

Completed by the National School of Healthcare Science