Clinical Bioinformatics Genomics – 2025 review results

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.

Programme

• I would like to propose a curriculum review for the specialty Bioinformatics Genomics to develop it into a specialty named ‘Bioinformatics and Genomic Informatics’ In genomic/genetic laboratories there are STPs following the Bioinformatics Genomics specialty there are also Informatics and IT staff who are undertaking work in Computer Science / Software and Systems Development and Data Management and Analysis. Some of these staff may align to the STP in Clinical Informatics and at least one Genomics Laboratory Hub has a trainee following that curriculum, other genetics labs also offer rotational modules to Clinical Informatics trainees. We have also considered offering this training programme, However, genetics laboratories only have enough Bioinformatics or Informatics work for a small number of staff in each of these areas compared to the number of staff in the Genomics and Cancer Genomics specialisms. A far better solution would be to merge the Bioinformatics and Informatics staff groups into one specialism that allows a robust and flexible workforce to develop that would be able to work on both Bioinformatic an Informatic solutions in Genomics depending on the needs and priorities of the department. Please can the proposal for the specialism to be reviewed to develop it into ‘Bioinformatics and Genomic Informatics’ be raised for consideration.
• I’d like to suggest that S-HI-R1 Introduction to Health Informatics be an alternative option in the Core modules to S-GC-R1 Introduction to the Principals and Practice of Genetic and Genomic Counselling. For the Bioinformatics Genomics Curriculum Only. This would be in keeping with another course offered in Clinical Bioinformatics – The PGCert. PG Cert Clinical Bioinformatics (Distance Learning) – BMH 2018-19 (manchester.ac.uk). This would also be in keeping with the post training work of staff in the Bioinformatics field who tend to have a closer working relationship with Clinical/Health Informatics staff than they do with Genetic Councillors.
• With the change in name of Bioinformatics (Physical Sciences) to Clinical Scientific Computing and Bioinformatics (Health Informatics)  to Clinical Informatics. Consider if the name of the Specialty should be changed from Clinical Bioinformatics Genomics to just Clinical Bioinformatics. The programme title already contains Genomics ie. currently  Programme title: Genomics Sciences – Clinical Bioinformatics Genomics to Programme title: Genomics Sciences – Clinical Bioinformatics. In the Specialty modules in the 2nd / 3rd year, I wonder if there’s scope to cover some of the work of the broader informatics team that work in Genomics. Eg Genomic LIMS development, Interoperability between Genomic LIMS and Electronic Patient Records, The National Genomic Test Directory (including the Genomic Testing Reporting Specification and Patient Level Contract Monitoring)
• The first year I don’t believe the first year is fit for purpose. The activities solely consisting of observe and reflect mean that the trainees don’t develop any bioinformatics skills during their first year unless they do significant work outside the curriculum. Additionally while I think it’s useful that the first years are now exposed to genomics, cancer genomics and counselling, this has been at the expense of cutting essential material from the first year curriculum (the previous module in computing delivered essential skills in databases and software development, and the other modules provided the only exposure to any kind of infrastructure information that was received in the program). I think the first years would benefit from a shorter genomics science combined rotation and a reintroduction of these missing components. Additionally, if the curriculum must be assessed by observation and reflection only, then this should be delivered over much shorter timescales to allow the trainees to develop more work based skills.

Inappropriate OCEs Any OCEs involving patient histories (notably S-BG-R1 OCEs) aren’t appropriate for bioinformatics modules – it is never appropriate for a bioinformatician to be gathering a patient history.

S-BG-S2 TA9 This training activity “Validate a Pipeline” seems more appropriate for third year than second, as this is an enormous amount of work. If there is any kind of expectation trainees finish the phase 2 modules at the end of second year, this would be better placed in S-BG-S4 or replaced with “Validate or verify a pipeline”.

S-BG-S3 Specifying R and Pandas throughout this module is useful if those are skills we want bioinformaticians to developed, but do not necessarily reflect how data is analysed in labs – I think it would be better if these skills were specialised for one competency and then the trainee is allowed to use whatever appropriate language to statistically analyse data for the rest of their competencies.

For TA-13, the wording is a little confusing – selecting an unestablished metric for variant interpretation has little practical use unless there are about to be new guidelines introduced which contain a new metric, as most labs should be using standardised guidelines for variant interpretation.

Other comments Overall I think the specialist content of the curriculum works well, and covers the major skills required to be a bioinformatician in the NHS. I think the curriculum would benefit from some training or education (probably through the university) on things like Cloud which are being rapidly adopted by many trusts – and that this content should be kept up to date as the field evolves.

Programme learning outcomes

• 1 – “Evaluate variation in the human genome and assess pathogenicity” – this probably needs rephrasing as evaluating pathogenicity is the job of genomics clinical scientists and not bioinformaticians. Additionally it does seem to tie in to just rare disease (cancer variants are looking at oncogenicity).
• S-BG-S1 (Diagnostic Sequencing) TA10: Is vague and overlaps with other training activities. Clarification and differentiation would be good. S-BG-S2 (Software) There is significant overlap with the Service Delivery module (e.g. validation). Recommend: Making TAs more technically focused. Introducing a TA specifically on containerisation (e.g. Docker). Making TA3, TA4, and TA10 more generic and inclusive of software, allowing them to be fulfilled via database or pipeline projects. S-BG-S4 (Service Delivery) Is good S-BG-S3 (Statistics) TA2, TA5, TA6, TA11, and TA12 have a lot of overlap and stats is not a major part of clinical bioinformatics so it seems a lot to have 5 TA on this Suggest including:  A focus on how results are displayed to clinical scientists. Include TA relating to automation. Overall  For some modules the DOPs and OCEs feel misaligned with the learning objectives or module content.

S-BG-R1 Introduction to Clinical Bioinformatics Genomics

Module aim

• This module is compulsory for genomics and cancer genomics trainees but contains more detailed information than they need. It would be better to have a few training activities relating to bioinformatics in the other first year modules or to have a single large introductory module with introductions to genomics, cancer, bioinformatics, counselling covered over 6 months leaving 2 and half years for trainees to focus on their specialism, each of which has so much specialist content.

Training activities

• 7 – Not relevant to genomics trainees. 9 is a duplication of a training activity in the genomics module.
• 9 – Duplicated from the Genomics Rotation (S-G-R1 TA2 & 7). Difficult to fulfil within bioinformatics as requires staff from other teams.
• 9 – This TA is to shadow a technologist or genomics clinical scientist so can’t be done in our team and we always have to ask the trainees to complete it in another rotation or arrange for the trainees to meet with a scientist in the lab
• 9 – TA9: The current requirement to “shadow a technician/clinical scientist” is covered in another rotational module (Introduction to Genomics) and cant be delivered by a bioinformatics team. Recommend replacing it with a focus on how bioinformatics integrates with other teams.

Direct Observation of Practical Skills (DOPS)

• “Prepare a command to initiate a pipeline”. “Check the progress of a pipeline.”- not relevant to genomics trainees.

Observed Communication Events (OCE)

• These feel unrelated to the module content
• “Gather a patient history relevant to the specialty from a patient, patient representative, or a member of the multidisciplinary team.” “Present a patient history relevant to the specialty to a member of the multidisciplinary team.”- Not relevant to bioinformatics.  bioinformaticians don’t meet patients or gather history.

S-BG-S1 Diagnostic Sequencing

Training activities

• 2 – Generate a genomic sequence alignment in an appropriate format. Evidence the activity has been undertaken by the trainee repeatedly, consistently, and effectively over time, in a range of situations. Annotate genomic variation data in the context of inherited and acquired disease Evidence the activity has been undertaken by the trainee repeatedly, consistently, and effectively over time, in a range of situations. The requirement to demonstrate that the activity has been carried out repeatedly does not reflect current bioinformatics practice where these steps are carried out as part of a pipeline rather than being carried out repeatedly by individual bioinformaticians. in practice trainees carry out the activity once as part of their training to ensure they understand the process that forms part of the pipeline rather than carrying it out repeatedly.

S-BG-S2 Software

• no feedback received

S-BG-S3 Applied Statistics, Data Science and Quality in Clinical Bioinformatics

• no feedback received

S-BG-S4 Service Delivery and Development

• no feedback received

Changes made

Module level changes

Major changes

Programme level changes

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

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

Specialty Lead Editor signature: Sam Nalty
Date: 5 January 2026

Change control - completed by the school

Programme structure

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 15 January 2026

Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) mapping

• No module level learning outcomes changed. Mapping to 13.04 select and use appropriate assessment techniques and equipment and 13.06 undertake or arrange investigations as appropriate revisited due to changes in the core modules. HCPC mapping maintained.

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 15 January 2026

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: 38

Major change: P1

Does change P1 more accurately summarise the learning from the programme?

• Yes: 29
• No: 3
• Can’t comment: 6
• Please tell us why you don’t think change P1 more accurately summarises the learning from the programme
  • I think the title is a bit unclear and confusing. “Evaluate variation in the human genome and predict variant effects using computational methods” could be better

Do you have any further comments on change P1?

• No
• Reflecting the most recent information, pending further analysis
• I think this is a good change as the roles and responsibilities of bioinformaticians have less to do with assessing pathogenicity in general and more to do with using programmatic tools to support variant effect prediction.
• This is more specific, before it suggested that variant interpretation was a key learning outcome which is not part of routine practice. Similar the wording for https://curriculumlibrary.nshcs.org.uk/stp/competency/S-BG-S1/6/ could be adjusted to reflect that that this is a programmatic assessment and not a full variant interpretation.
• This sounds more like a bioinformatics approach which is good. Previously it was more genomics-based
• This would be a change for the better – doing things programmatically is important in bioinformatics whereas variant interpretation is not usually part of the role.
• I think it should be both, as we teach our trainees not to solely rely on programmatic/ in-silico predictions and that they should also be aware and involved it the work required to interpret variants pathogenicity and the sources used.
• Much clearer and more relevant to this specialist area
• Trainees will still need to understand variant interpretation guidelines even if they will not be assessed on applying them
• This appears to be an emphasis shift towards more Bioinfx specific practices including variant annotation, filtration and prioritisation, which we support. The previous wording would permit pathogenicity assessment using less bioinfx relevant methods, or without the use of programmatic methods.
• I’m not sure that ‘programmatically’ is the best term, maybe something like ‘use computational methods and data to predict variant effect’
• New title feels like an unclear riddle. Can you just make it obvious what needs to be done and state it simply in the training activity.
• This further prevents the lack of suitability of this programme for pathogen genomics bioinformaticians, requiring the creation of a new Bioinformatics Pathogen Genomics curriculum as requested by UKHSA and NHS Wales.

Major change: P2

Do you think change P2 provides beneficial skills and knowledge to trainees?

• Yes: 25
• No: 10
• Can’t comment: 3
• Please tell us why you don’t think change P2 will provide beneficial skills and knowledge to trainees
  • It’s important for the bioinformatics trainee rotate to the lab and familial with the lab requirement.
  • Please do not remove the Genomic Counselling rotation for Bioinformatics trainees. The Genomic Counselling rotation was the only opportunity for trainees in this specialism to observe patient interactions in real time. This is an extremely important experience for any STP trainee in any specialism as we are Clinical Scientists who serve patients. We need to understand the impact of our work on the patients we serve, and we will spend the rest of our careers isolated from the patient part of the pathway – i.e. the most vitally important part. This rotation was quite literally our one and only chance to see how our work impacts patients in genuine scenarios. The Genomic Counselling rotation was already stripped of much of its value by attempts this past year to move to a virtual-only, pre-recorded-roleplay-only model for the rotation. This is unacceptable in and of itself, but now you are attempting to remove the rotation as a whole. I am beyond disappointed and feel very strongly this is a poor move which will directly harm patient care. Below is a rationale for genuine, patient facing experiences for Clinical Bioinformatics Genomics trainees in the Genomic Counselling rotation which I wrote and sent to GTAC after experiencing their virtual-only placement. Please review these reasons why genuine patient experiences must be advocated for on behalf of all incoming STP Trainees in the Clinical Bioinformatics Genomics specialism:
    • For many trainees who are not patient-facing, such as those in Genomics specialisms, this is our one opportunity to be in the room (even a virtual Teams room) with actual patients.
    • Curriculum & accreditation requirements – accrediting bodies expect that STPs gain firsthand clinical experience during the STP, not solely theoretical or simulated knowledge.
    • Impact is greater when we see real patients – when the trainee knows that it’s a real patient in front of them, rather than an actor, it changes the way we absorb our observations.
    • Patient authenticity – genuine experiences give us a truer sense of the patient journey, rather than manufactured problems which are conveniently resolved by the end of the meeting.
    • Clinical workflow – we don’t understand what happens before and after a visit as simulated visits happen in a vacuum.
    • Patient impact – real patient experiences in-trust give us an understanding of the limitations of our services, which nurture future Clinical Scientists to meet the needs of the patients we serve. We are budding Clinical Scientists – not just Trainees to cycle through a training.
    • Quality reflections – when comparing our observations of simulated experiences to the observations of our fellow trainees who saw real patients, the depth of reflections they took away from their experiences were far superior.
    • Previous trainees’ opinions – it may be useful to ask non-GC trainees who have graduated the programme how they feel about this rotation becoming 100% simulated. Based on the people I’ve spoken to, they were shocked and concerned, since they agree with me that this experience of getting to see patient interactions was one of the most formative experiences in their career as a Clinical Scientist. They were able to apply the experiences from this rotation to several of their Professional Practice competencies as well, as this rotation was their only opportunity for patient-facing experiences which are needed for that module.
  • Counterpoints to common pushbacks I have received after expressing these concerns with GTAC:
    • It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. If there was a problem with 9-5, 4 week shadowing, the answer is not necessarily to take shadowing away entirely. Perhaps replace some of the in-demand, rare, or most sensitive meetings with simulated ones, but still allow trainees a genuine patient-facing experience here and there.
    • Some trusts having less capacity does not mean that shadowing should be eliminated from all rotations. Some trusts do have capacity, including ours, which provided 4-week in person placements for 2 other trainees. They unfortunately used the GTAC virtual materials as an excuse to deny us access to any patient-facing experiences.
    • Consistency is not quality – Although the virtual placements provide consistent experiences for all trainees, we’re missing out on the quality that comes from observing and absorbing the impact of patient-facing experiences in our own trusts.
    • Capacity is a problem across the NHS. This is not an excuse to downgrade the quality of training. ALL departments must deal with the demands of allowing STP trainees to shadow them – this is one demand that our Bioinformatics department had to deal with and take in stride. We are all busy and we must all endeavour to offer the best quality work we can on the resources we have.
    • It’s not about specific cases – A lot of specific cases can be provided in virtual learning materials. That’s great! That doesn’t mean there is no value in getting to observe a few patient-facing experiences, even if they are the most boring, run of the mill appointments.
    • Simulated is different from genuine. If you found out your therapist was an actor – would you still go to that therapist? If you found out your friend was an AI, would you still feel you had a genuine friendship with them? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn’t. Maybe those analogies aren’t perfect 1:1 comparisons for this situation. BUT, the reality is, simulations are different from a genuine interaction, and they will never have the same impact on trainees.
  • Please reconsider replacing this module in the curriculum.
  • After completing the Genomic Counselling rotation in my first year, I found it to be a very rewarding training rotation. Especially having the patient-facing opportunity.
  • We are specifically training to work in genomics, and need to have an understanding of all parts of the patient pathway. Part of this pathway is genomic counselling, which is important for us not only to understand this role so that we are able to work with genomic counsellors effectively, but also to understand the perspective of patients whom we have very little interaction with in our day-to-day work. Every STP trainee bioinformatician I have discussed the GC rotation with said it was invaluable and help challenge some of their inherent biases around testing.
  • Our year already had massively reduced GC shadowing due to the changes introduced with GTAC, which I feel had a very negative impact on our training at our trust. I don’t think this exposure should be reduced even further by removing the rotation entirely. GCs are still an integral part of the genomics workforce and we need to understand how patients reach us and the human impact our work has.
  • This would be a major step-back for the curriculum, which would affect the breadth of knowledge and skills for a trainees. The GC rotation is very well-fitting currently and gives trainees the chance to see patients and understand the patient journey. Having had to do the health informatics rotation when I was an STP, I would not recommend this change!
  • Counselling provide excellent patient context and awareness. Health Informatics is too small a discipline.
  • The Genomic Counselling rotation is a very useful component of the trainees’ first year and gives them a great understanding of the wider patient journey.
  • The genomic counselling rotation is particularly beneficial to learning and i don’t think it should be replaced.
  • I’ve undertaken the health informatics MSc module at the University of Manchester as part of a separate degree, prior to the STP. It was useful, but a lot of the information I learned through that module is picked up anyway during the STP, and counselling is an important component of first year that shouldn’t be fully removed in my opinion. Shadowing genomic counsellors contextualised my work and really gave me a deeper appreciation for why we do what we do, which can be difficult to fully grasp until observing genomic counselling sessions in-person and seeing the impact our work has on patients. I understand the angle that health informatics is more directly relevant, but first year bioinformatics students should still be encouraged to spend some time shadowing counsellors.
  • It removes the options to see how all the different specialisms work with each other

Do change P2 address a need in your workplace?

• Yes: 22
• No: 10
• Can’t comment: 6
• Please tell us why you don’t think change P2 will address a need in your workplace
  • As clinical scientists working in the molecular genetics lab, the bioinformatic scientist are welcomed to join in the discussion. Their input is high-valued at all times. Equally, it’s critical for them to understand what the downstream workflow and how the data they generate are being used by the downstream lab scientist. So the rotation to the lab will help the bioinformatic trainees to get a better understanding in this aspect.
  • There is not a need for Bioinformatics trainees to undergo a Health Informatics module. In fact I would like to hear exactly why you think this would help anyone. I am convinced that this move is purely to reduce load on Genomic Counsellors. If you would like to reduce load on Genomic Counsellors please review my rebuttals to common pushbacks offered above.
  • Trainees already gain experience of many of the key elements in S-HI-R1 through their STP projects, often these have a strong informatics component. Some of the content is also duplicated in the specialist module https://curriculumlibrary.nshcs.org.uk/stp/module/S-BG-S4/ and the TA https://curriculumlibrary.nshcs.org.uk/stp/competency/S-BG-S3/15/
  • As genomic scientists we rarely work with Health Informatics
  • As clinical scientists in genetics health informatics isn’t as relevant and the parts that are would not be represented in a rotation.
  • It did not add value as a rotation in the past.
  • Health Informatics might be useful but this would be outweighed by the loss of the Counselling rotation.
  • A lot of the training activities in the health informatics rotation have considerable overlap with their existing bioinformatics rotations like observing reporting of data, following data through a pathway, data protection (normally covered during the review effect of a piece of legislation), etc. While more health informatics training would be useful as we integrate with more systems, I don’t think this is addressed through observational training activities in first year.
  • I think the informatics module would be useful but not more so than counselling
  • I don’t think its relevant

Would your workplace be able to deliver the programme with change P2?

• Yes: 13
• No: 5
• Can’t comment: 20
• Please tell us why you don’t think your workplace would be able to deliver the programme with change P2 included
  • no established bioinformatic department within the org..
  • Lack of health informatics capacity/workforce, lack of relevance for trainees in genomics.
  • No health infomatics dept that’s willing to host.
  • We do not have Health Informatics in our department.
  • We are support health informatics rotation as the main structured component if placement quality can be assured. We will needs to re-establish quality links with Health Informatics Teams within the region to support this.

Do you have any further comments on change P2?

• No
• This would be a good change, spending so much time shadowing genomic counsellors, though it was interesting and enjoyable, seemed an excessive use of resources to acheive the goal of helping bioinformaticians understand the impact of their work on patients.   As clinical bioinformaticians in some trusts undertake work that could be categorised as health informatics this new module would be useful.  It was helpful to shadow counsellors so it would be good to add a requirement in the genomics or cancer genomics modules to shadow a counsellor for at least a day so that trainees would still have the opportunity to meet paitients.
• I would also swap cancer genomics for Introduction to Clinical Scientific Computing – bioinformaticians don’t need to understand cancer genomics in as much detail as is provided in this module and a lot of it is repetition of the content of genomics.  I found my self cramming detailed facts about cancer for the exam that I have forgotten over the following year as I have not used the knowledge. Perhaps genomics and cancer genomics could be compined into a single module that is 1.5 times the size of a current module.   Understanding how computing is used in a wider context would be more  to bioinformaticians.
• Keep the rotation as they are
• Please reconsider.
• Although a rotation in health informatics would provide an opportunity to develop extra informatics skills, missing out on observing genomic counselling appointments could lead to a lack of awareness of the overall genomics service and how patients interact with it.  Additionally, it could be argued that health informatics skills such as data collection and interacting with electronic patient records are not relevant to clinical bioinformaticians.
• This is very difficult to judge as S-HI-R1 is relevant, arguably more relevant in terms of skills and knowledge but S-GC-R1 is very valuable in terms of understanding the patient perspective and the wider role of genomic testing. It is also probably the only time that trainees have the opportunity to interact with patients, and the reflections from these experiences are really valuable for their professional development and are helpful in completing core training activities. I think there is a risk that if clinical shadowing isn’t included in the curriculum at all then trainees will miss out, or only have a handful of opportunities if they don’t use their IPD module for this.
• Please don’t change this, it would be a mistake.
• Health Informatics dept’s are vary massively between Trusts.
• I think health informatics would be more relevant but GC is a good rotation to do as it’s easy to reflect on – this is important for the Manchester University essay
• It would be good to keep counselling in the curriculum somewhere, as this rotation is the only place that bioinformatics trainees shadow patient appointments which is valuable for their development
• however, bioinformatics crosses over and collaborates a lot with health informatics and increasing trainees skills in that area would be very beneficial to their future roles.
• It is a positive change that I support. I would not want to lose the patient contact completely by losing the GC module. If an additional, say, week of shadowing was not included elsewhere I wound at that for our trainees
• For many bioinformatics STP the S-GC-R1 Genomics Counselling is the only opportunity for trainees to interact and meet with patients. this is vital for helping to bring a patient-centric focus to their development and work which can often be overlooked in a ‘behind the scenes’ role such as bioinformatics. However, I do agree that the Clinical bioinformatics STPs are missing out on vital big data, LIMS, and EPR and integration-associated training that the health informatics teams can offer. Health informatics should be included in the curriculum, but not at the expense of genomic counselling.
• The removal of Genomic Counselling from this curriculum is a shame especially as it is not usually patient facing, however the addition of Health Informatics perhaps outweighs that. Consideration of including some element of patient facing experiences in the curriculum would be highly beneficial.
• Agree, with proposed changes in the 10YHP to integrate genomic testing results in primary care and population health, trainees will need an understanding of healthcare data in a wider context.
• Some more clarity on what the school intends to teach via the proposed new rotation would be beneficial in assessing whether it is required.
• The Genomics Counselling rotation was one of the highlights of my training. It provided valuable insights into the wider patient pathway and into patient perspectives, which I think is beneficial to all trainees working within a GLH. It incorporated interesting ethical questions that we may not otherwise come across, but which are important for informing our decision making. It also allowed us to develop and reflect on communication skills, which is important in this field. Whilst the Health Informatics module provides trainees with an opportunity to gain deeper informatics skills relevant to the role, it would be a shame to lose the breadth of knowledge and patient focus that came from the Counselling rotation. With this change, it might be good to encourage bioinformaticians to do a Counselling placement as part of the Individual Professional Development module.
• I think this could be good for the bioinformatics discipline. We often think about bioinformatics pipelines, but this module, if I understand it, could help understand the wider workflow of patient referrals etc. and could help bioinformaticians get involved in electronic test requests for genomics, mining patient records for HPO terms, etc.
• We would need to collaborate with another team/organisation in order to deliver this additional rotation so cannot comment on whether we’d be able to deliver it. It’s disappointing to see the proposal to remove the genomic counselling rotation as this is a bioinformatics trainee’s one opportunity to interact with patients and understand the patient experience. The patient often gets forgotten because we’re so far removed from them and this rotation is an important reminder of why we do what we do. It’s also an opportunity to meet several of the professional foundations training activities and DOPS/OCEs that are difficult to address in our own teams as they are so patient-focused. In the past our trainees have really enjoyed their counselling rotation.
• We can see the benefits of the health informatics rotation and the TA’s look useful. We are concerned that by removing the genomic counselling rotation trainees will find it difficult to find the opportunity to observe patient appointments. Trainees have found this aspect of the training useful when considering the impact that our work has on patient care which has helped develop their reflective writing. We feel strongly that this is something that would need to be provided in a different capacity – perhaps through GTAC – if the genomic counselling module is replaced.
• After discussing this change with the wider bioinformatics team, thoughts on this change were mixed. All trainees and recently qualified bioinformaticians who did the counselling rotation feel that it was an incredibly valuable experience that allowed them to appreciate how their role fits into the wider patient pathway. they also noted that some professional practice TAs could be addressed during this rotation too.
• It is also acknowledged that the TAs and assessments in the health informatics module are more relevant to a bioinformatician and would therefore be more a more appropriate part of the bioinfx  programme. We did however note delivery concerns as not all departments have provisions to deliver this module. for example, wider discussions would be needed in our department to determine if the informatics team would be prepared to deliver this module as they currently have no informatics STP trainees.
• All in all, it was felt the best compromise would involve implementing the change with sufficient notice to allow adequate preparations for departments to deliver this module if they haven’t previously. with the addition of recommending a shorter (perhaps 2-5 days) placement in a patient facing setting to retain those valuable experiences previously provided through the counselling rotation.
• This would provide a more beneficial programme for students. We currently deliver Introduction to Health Informatics to a number of pathways at University of Manchester each year so it would be straightforward to provide this module for the academic delivery. We would be able to tailor case studies/practical exercises to suit the bioinformatics cohort. We do recognise that the Counselling module did provide important experience for the bioinformatics trainees regarding the roles and needs of counsellors and patients, so we would suggest that we should consider how to include some of this elsewhere in the academic programme.
• Do not remove patient-facing exposure entirely: retain a mandatory minimum (e.g., a short genomic counselling/clinic observation requirement) to prevent it becoming optional.
• Use independent profess development module for trainees who want extended GC time, but don’t rely on this alone for baseline exposure.
• Add an implementation note to the module change to advise that health informatics placement availability and standards need active coordination across centres (so it doesn’t degrade into vaguely adjacent work).

Major change: M12

Do change M12 provide beneficial skills and knowledge to trainees?

• Yes: 26
• No: 3
• Can’t comment: 9
• Please tell us why you don’t think change M12 will provide beneficial skills and knowledge to trainees
  • Trainees already conduct similar tasks for other TAs. This will be a bit repetitive.
  • This may be useful for informaticians, but I don’t think it would be useful for other specialities who do this module (Genomics, Cancer Genomics, Genomic Counselling)
  • There’s already visualisation training activities and a good trainee should be able to apply the knowledge gained in those in different contexts whether it’s data from a statistical test or not

Do change M12 address a need in your workplace?

• Yes: 20
• No: 3
• Can’t comment: 15
• Please tell us why you don’t think change M12 will address a need in your workplace
  • Trainees already conduct similar tasks for other TAs. This will be a bit repetitive and will not add much
  • This would not be useful for a Genomics scientist who does not work with Bioinformaticians
  • There’s already visualisation training activities and a good trainee should be able to apply the knowledge gained in those in different contexts whether it’s data from a statistical test or not

Would your workplace be able to deliver the programme with change M12?

• Yes: 23
• No: 0
• Can’t comment: 15

Do you have any further comments on these proposed change M12?

• I think it would be helpful to include examples
• It’s worth considering the new technology, such AI or virtual reality?
• I think this a good TA that gives the learner some more flexibility in the production of visualisations. Creating dashboards or apps is quite a common task that is relevant for this. This would bring the TA count for this module to 16 which is a lot, I think https://curriculumlibrary.nshcs.org.uk/stp/competency/S-BG-S3/9/ could be removed or combined with TA7?
• The wording is very unclear and could do with improving.
• Why can’t outputs of statistical tests be used? The rationale is unclear
• Why not derived from statistical data? Does it matter where the data comes from? By visualisation do you just mean a graph? Or an app?
• This TA is unclear – what does not derived from a statistical test mean in this context? I think without further explanation it could be very confusing
• Not sure what is meant by “not derived from statistical test” but more data visualisation and interpretation is a valuable skill to develop.
• Agree, text could flow better though
• The stats module overall is misguided. Statistics are not currently used in the clinical genomics field, and it’s rare that visualisation of data needs to be done. I would not consider only adding to this module useful. Much needs to be stripped out of it or altogether replaced.
• The scope for this TA feels inappropriate – to plan, develop and implement would require a small project. If the ‘implement’ aspect was dropped this would be more manageable for a single TA. There is a lot of repetitiveness in the statistics module which already makes it difficult to deliver – we think it would be better if this new TA could be used to replace one of the existing visualisation TA’s.
• This is a sensible addition and we could not foresee any significant workload increase from delivering it.
• In the academic course we already address this aspect in the practical and assessed work undertaken by the trainees. If needed we can make it more specific.

Major change: All

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

• Yes: 32
• No: 3
• Can’t comment: 3
• Please tell us why you wouldn’t feel safe with someone who completed the programme including all of these changes, was involved in delivering health care for you, within their scope of practice
• I would not feel safe knowing that there are Clinical Scientists working today who have never observed a genuine, face to face patient interaction.
• As a patient I would want to know that everyone involved in my care was thinking firstly about me as a human being, and the impact the results and testing might have on my wellbeing. The GC rotation is the only chance a trainee bioinformatician has to actually see patients and have discussions about the psychological effects of testing, and the widespread family impacts it can have. I think removing this component makes bioinformaticians even further removed from the impacts of their work.
• I think understanding genomics counselling is key to how we work as a wider genomics team and sharing knowledge of different specialities. The programme would be missing a huge part of understanding the patient journey and how our work impacts patient’s lives.

Lead Editor response

• P1 – edit and apply change
• P2 – do not apply change
• M12 – edit and apply change

Please provide a brief rationale for your decisions:

P1: Agree with feedback, using data and computational methods is clearer.

P2: Agree with feedback, the first year requires work but this should be done as part of future periodic reviews.

M12: Agree with feedback, rework wording and add considerations with examples for clarity.

Specialty Lead Editor signature: Sam Nalty
Date: 16 February 2026

Major change - edit change control

Completed by the National School of Healthcare Science