Genomics – 2025 periodic 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

• We have a huge amount of STP’s requiring the Genomics unit, this is Embryologists, Biochemists, Immunologists etc. The Genomics unit they cover is the same in the 1st year as the Genomic STP’s. This unit IS NOT RELEVANT to their practice and as a service we are finding it extremely difficult to cover the numbers. We also object to training STP’s with private companies that we receive no financial reimbursement from. Someone needs to take them off The Genomics unit and replace with something far more relevant.
• I don’t think the DTA/ETA things are always appropriate. E.g. Module: S-G-S2 Prenatal Genomics TA10 is an ETA but STPs don’t really get chance to participate in a lot of service work for prenatal cases. Additionally, in the GLHs we don’t separate our tests into paediatric and adult referrals. So it’s a bit unhelpful for there to be two separate training activities for things like Cystic Fibrosis – one for paediatric referrals and one for adult referrals. In my opinion it would be better if the Training Activities were just split into each disorder. E.g. “TA – Select the correct test, analyse and report cases referred for Cystic Fibrosis.” Or “TA – Select the correct test, analyse and report cases referred for SMA”. This would be a better way for the TAs to be split up, rather than combining a couple of disorders into one TA when they might be disorders that are covered by two separate teams, therefore have different training at different points of the programme. E.g. Module: S-G-S3 TA1 includes FH, CMT, triplet repeats, karyotyping and other molecular testing. These things will all be done at different times and training will be on different teams by different scientists. So it makes it very difficult for this to be signed off. Often, STPs will have to do part of the TA then leave the rest of it until a year later when the other part is covered. I think this can be confusing for STPs and it would be better for their revision and consolidation if the TAs were just split into one disorder per TA.
• The curriculum is largely out of date. There is a large emphasis on cytogenetic techniques (QFPCR, array etc) and WGS is rarely mentioned (except in a general learning outcome). Large amounts of the Cancer is covered nationally which means that there are massive gaps in out trainees knowledge as the national training is limited and virtual and the marking comes to local TO who have 0 knowledge of the speciality services. There is too large a weight on Cancer. The Professional Practice unit has elements that are not totally valuable (Public health initiative). The involvement of SC-2 in the phase 2 progression is problematic as most of our trainees prefer to do the literature review at the end. The involvement of the TO has got more and more complex and few have the time. I feel very strongly that there should be more local flexibility so that TO’s can provide the local experience that meets the trainee needs. National training is not working as the GTAC resources are all virtual and the marking falls to local teams (they are nor trained in these areas).
• Due to the expansion in content and the ever growing split in the profession between RD and Acquired cancer, the genomics trainees should no longer be required to do the depth of haemato-oncology rotation that they are currently doing. Due to the high numbers of trainees coming through the Cancer Genomics Programme it is very unlikely that a Genomics trainee would ever be employed in a Cancer Genomics post.
• There is a significant amount of acquired cancer content in the Genomics curriculum. This content is delivered by cancer genomics TOs and specialists, in addition to supporting cancer genomics trainees, it is a significant burden on cancer genomics trainers. This level of aquired cancer training is unsustainable and no longer necessary for genomics trainees, as this is now its own specialty. We can therefore be confident that removing or significantly reducing it from the genomics curriculum would not create a skills or workforce gap. The time spent on cancer genomics competence can instead be focused on enhancing and consolidating knowledge and skills in more pertinent modules such as WGS, Pharmacogenetics, and population genetics.
• Please can you consider reviewing the format of the TAs in the adult and pediatric modules. The way they are written means there are both disorders that span more than one module/TA and also TAs that include different disorders and therefore need assessing by different people. It means that it’s hard to keep track of what it actually signed off/completed by the trainee- I’m asking trainees to send multiple submissions under one TA, but that TA is marked as complete after one accepted submission on Onefile. It means the % progress shown on Onefile is over-inflated. The way that the cancer module TAs is broken down clearly by disease/area is much clearer and one that it would be nice to see across other modules.
• I was chatting to a recently registered genomics scientist who mentioned that now she was registered she was being trained to review test requests. It seems odd that after 3 years of training trainees haven’t been given the experience to be competent to do the core elements of their job.  I career changed as I was previously a solicitor. When I was a trainee solicitor the expectation was that after 1 year at law school doing the masters equivalent and 2 years workplace training one would be a competent, albeit inexperienced, solicitor.  A newly qualified solicitor would still be supervised, though not as closely as a trainee would be. They would be expected to know when to ask for help or advice.   It seems like the genomics STP is so focussed on academic content that on completion the trainees have lots of technical knowledge but not enough skills to do the job on qualification.  Trainees should have more opportunities to shadow work and carry out enough work under supervision that they are competent on qualification.   It would be helpful for the people who design the STP programme to spend time with trainees in other professions, including, but not limited to, healthcare professions to understand the capacity graduates have to do genuine work under supervision.  The final year of all STP curricula should include substantial amounts of supervised service delivery work.
• Cancer genomics now needs to be removed from the Genomics curriculum. Cancer Genomics STP do not have to perform a Genomics rotation or module. It is now too challenging to deliver training in Haem Malignancy to both Cancer Genomics STPs and Genomics STPs. If Cancer Genomics has to stay in the Genomics Curriculum, then it would be preferable to change the diseases from AML and ALL to CML and CLL. AML and ALL have the most complex testing pathways and it is extremely challenging to deliver anything at a meaningful level. The fact that all the TAs/assessments are DTA rather than ETA also means that no meaningful level of competence.

S-G-R1 Introduction to Genetics, Genomics and Molecular Science

Module aim

• This module contains information that is relevant to the trainees but there is a lot of duplication with cancer genomics.  If a lab does both then the samples often go through the same pathway for example.  It would be better to have a single 6 month introductory module that would cover the 4 topics leaving more time for trainees to focus on their specialism.

Training activities

• 8 – duplication with cancer genomics

Direct Observation of Practical Skills (DOPS)

• “Review a referral for appropriateness.” “Generate a basic report”. “Perform analysis of the results of a molecular genetic test”. “Perform analysis for a sample referred for chromosome assessment.”  – The content of the module is based on observing others carrying out activities and reflecting on them rather than learning how to perform them so having an assessment in which trainees are expected to demonstrate competence in performing an activity that  they have not been trained to perform, and which will not form part of their role is not a demonstration that they have completed the module.

Observed Communication Events (OCE)

• “Gather 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 another member of the multidisciplinary team.” – This is not relevant to the work of genetic scientists, genetic scientists do not gather patient histories, they get information about patients from forms submitted with samples.  It would not be ethical for a trainee who has not been trained in taking histories to gather a history from a patient

Another element of a module

• This is meant to last 5 weeks (4 minimum). We do not need any where near this time to cover this. 2 weeks would suffice and allow the trainees to concentrate on core areas of their speciality. These for the Genomic trainees are wasted as we cover them in far more detail later on. We are unable to offer the required training to the sheer number of external trainees (Endocrinologists, histopath etc) so I feel that either this needs to be run and MARKED nationally as local Genomic centres really struggle with the numbers involved. The marking is a major problem for the numbers we have to support.

S-G-S1 Paediatric Genomics

Training activities

• 6 – The majority of paediatric panels (R27, R29) are performed using whole genome sequencing now. Therefore I think it would make sense for this competency to change from NGS to WGS.
• 9 – Most NHS laboratories are moving away from doing microarray testing for pediatric patients – these referrals are now having WGS as a first line test. Under the current wording this will make this TA almost impossible for trainees to complete in an NHS lab. I would suggest changing the wording to “CNVs identified by WGS or array” instead of “array abnormalities” to reflect this change in practice.

S-G-S2 Prenatal Genomics

Training activities

• 4 – Karyotyping is now rarely performed for prenatals with abnormal scan findings. Suggest this is removed from the TA.

S-G-S3 Adult Genomics

Training activities

• 3 – “Cystic fibrosis deletion” is an error. Please correct to just “Cystic fibrosis”

S-G-S4 Cancer

Module aim

• For haemato-oncology, this module focuses on ALL and AML. These are two very complex diseases and the disease pathways are also complex with many different techniques used for testing. These do not seem like the most appropriate pathways to use to train colleagues focusing on mainly germline disorders about somatic testing strategies, especially when only a very short timeframe is available. They might gain more value learning something simpler and then potentially having the chance to practice what they have learnt eg CML/MPN pathways.
• Cancer genomics now needs to be removed from the Genomics curriculum. Cancer Genomics STP do not have to perform a Genomics rotation or module. It is now too challenging to deliver training in Haem Malignancy to both Cancer Genomics STPs and Genomics STPs. If Cancer Genomics has to stay in the Genomics Curriculum, then it would be preferable to change the diseases from AML and ALL to CML and CLL. AML and ALL have the most complex testing pathways and it is extremely challenging to deliver anything at a meaningful level. The fact that all the TAs/assessments are DTA rather than ETA also means that no meaningful level of competence can be achieved.

Another element of a module

• Was required to create a training module for ctDNA in Lung cancer despite knowing that the current methodology was about to be changed. This training module now no longer reflects current practice. And as this testing is no longer being delivered within the NEYGLH there is no-one within the GLH that can create a suitable new training module, nor deliver it.

Changes made

Programme level changes

Rationale

Stakeholders provided significant feedback on the programme overall and at the individual module level. Key feedback and changes include:

• Many laboratories fed back that the volume of work required from trainees for the Cancer module was too much, especially considering there is a Cancer Genomics specialism. It is still important that Genomics trainees have an understanding of Cancer work undertaken in the laboratory, however the changes have reduced the volume of Training Activities and assessments, as well as streamlining some of the disorders required to be looked at by trainees.
• The current curriculum was felt by stakeholders to be out-of-date, with concerns around areas such as lack of Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS). The changes have updated the curriculum to include a much greater focus on WGS and variants identifiable from this testing. The changes have also sought to future-proof the curriculum with changes around testing strategies that may become less utilised, and requirements for laboratories to be involved more in population health testing. The changes have also sought to ensure trainees gain and retain knowledge on cytogenetics such that they understand the chromosomal background of what may be identified via tests such as WGS.
• Concerns had been raised around the lack of training on basic skills including nomenclature determination, variant interpretation and test request triaging via roles such as Duty Scientist. Changes made have incorporated these into specific Training Activities to ensure these are covered by trainees with a firm grounding for future modules and future work as registered scientists.
• Stakeholder feedback noted that there was duplication of tests and disorders across different modules with current curriculum, for example testing for Cystic Fibrosis and FMR1-related disorders within the Paediatric Genomics Module and the Adult Genomics module. This has been remedied in removing this duplication as part of a shift removing the Paediatrics and Adult split, and instead providing a Rare Disease 1 (10 credits) and Rare Disease 2 (20 credits). Some duplication was considered still necessary in order to reinforce aspects of Next Generation Sequencing, Cytogenetics, and Variant Interpretation, however these are covered across different tests, for example NGS panel testing within Rare Disease 1 module and a focus on WGS in Rare Disease 2 module.
• Feedback was also provided that some Training Activities covered different tests or disorders, and this made it difficult to assign to one assessor, creating complexity in assessments. This has been reduced and therefore should ensure each Training Activity can be assessed by one assessor.
• With the regional Genomic Medicine Services, many tests/disorders are only tested for in one laboratory in the region. This can make it difficult for trainees to spend a significant amount of time on training for these and doing service delivery work. Therefore a number of Training Activities have been switched to DTAs to reflect this, including the Prenatal module.
• Some laboratories raised concerns around the lack of focus on Quality within the curriculum and that this is an element of the Clinical Scientist role that trainees are underexposed to. This has been rectified with changes that add Training Activities to both Rare Disease modules to focus trainees on some specific Quality aspects and provide this exposure.
• Please note, some feedback was received regarding the length of time that the Introduction to Genomics phase 1 module takes up, and the different specialisms that are required to be provided with this phase 1 module. However, changes to these are not within the remit of the Periodic Review Group.

Specialty Lead Editor Signature: Gavin Ryan
Date: 27 May 2026

Change control - completed by the school

Programme structure

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 27 May 2026

Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) mapping

• HCPC SOPs continue to be met by the specialty curriculum with the proposed module substitutions. As previously, with the exception of standard 13.12 “know, appropriate to the speciality or specialities, how to position or immobilise service users for safe and effective interventions” which is not applicable to practice in this specialty.

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 27 May 2026

Major change stakeholder survey

Feedback from stakeholders on the proposed major changes was collected through a survey between 28 May and 14 June 2026. All stakeholder feedback is presented verbatim. Two responses, which considered the Cancer Genomics STP Curriculum rather than the proposed Genomics Sciences Curriculum, have been removed.

Total respondents: 96

Respondent specialties

• Genomics – 76% (73)
• Cancer Genomics- 20% (19)
• Not applicable: 4% (4)

Do these changes provide beneficial skills and knowledge to trainees?

• Yes: 80% (77)
• No: 5% (5)
• Can’t comment: 15% (14)
• Please tell us why you don’t think these changes will provide beneficial skills and knowledge to trainees
  • I work in the cancer section and I think this removes vital resources from cancer training. Our trainees will be bottlenecked into the rare disease section rather than being able to work in either after their training, especially if things like AML are removed which is a great example of so many tests as well as demonstrating clinical urgency etc. I agree that the rare disease format change makes sense but I totally disagree with the changes to the cancer module.
  • The cancer module has been halved in credits, and the Haematological malignancies studied limited to CML. Whilst this will greatly reduce the training burden on staff, I am not sure this is sufficient learning for trainees who at the end of their training are meant to move straight into a Band 7 job role. In reality they will not all be employed doing cancer genomics, and have very little experience of the testing strategies in haematological malignancies.
  • I believe it’s important for genomics trainees to spend a significant time learning about cancer and I wouldn’t want that to be taken off my training. Also, taking it out would limit our job prospects afterwards. I have seen the feedback saying that it wouldn’t create skill deficit or affect the workforce because there are many cancer trainees coming in but I think one of the attraction of doing Genomics for STPs is how general it is and that they get to learn and be competent in all areas of genomics and cancer is a significant one. On top of that, genomic scientists do work with cancer cases as well not just cancer genomic scientists so I do believe reducing the cancer module would create skills deficit in the workforce. Cancer is a complex area and deserves the attention and focus it is given as a 20c module.
  • Having CML as the only haematological cancer means the testing pathway covered is very limited.  The students will get very limited exposure to FISH and acquired NGS and acquired variant analysis.
  • I do not think it is beneficial to Genomics trainees to undertake the Cancer Genomics module. What they learn is so light touch, and the assessments so light touvh (DTAs), they would be better not undertaking any cancer genomics training and would benefit from having longer focussing on Genomics only.

Do these changes address a need in your workplace?

• Yes: 69% (66)
• No: 9% (9)
• Can’t comment: 22% (21)
• Please tell us why you don’t think these changes will address a need in your workplace
  • Removing AML is taking away a huge part of the training and a great example of so many of our tests in practice. The trainees will only get a brief glimpse of cancer (10 credits) vs 40 credits in the rare disease section.
  • Very limited training in haematological malignancies in favour of increased Rare disease modules
  • I believe the curriculum is good as it is and does address the workplace needs. Changes would create more troubles and issues and not resolve anything. I do not think the changes address a need in my workplace. I’ve seen the comments saying that the service isn’t split between pediatric and adults, which is true but every service is split into different divisions based on the service needs and capacity. There can’t be one curriculum that reflects how all services work. Trainees exposed to one service and how it works won’t necessarily know how another service works until they work there or do some collaboration or shadowing so no I don’t think changing it in this way would necessarily address the need in my workplace. I think pediatric genetics is a growing area and it’s important to give it the attention it needs so trainees are able to delve into it and understand it better rather than merge it with another.
  • I believe Phase 1 needs to be utilised and trainees need to be given more earlier on – they are very capable and cramming more work towards the back end of the training programme sequesters their capacity to gain the relevant experience from these rotations. Phase 1 should be either shorter or include some specialty module work. Phase 1 should also be used to horizon scan to help position trainees so that they can build professional relations beyond being an STP and actually be part of the workforce; training records being adapted to training activity submission would be a great example of this – they can contribute to service work and have a taste of contextual service work. This would also reduce the time required for scientists to mark multiple essays for techniques that training records provide evidence for; they should be coupled with cases the trainee has worked on to showcase their understanding of an assay.
  • Fewer and fewer STPs have enough knowledge/experience in inherited cancer. It’s not well covered in either genomics or cancer genomics
  • I cannot see initially how expanding the RD2 to 20 credits and reducing cancer to 10 would address a need in our workplace
  • The changes will not have a direct impact on the scope of training delivered in my department.
  • The specialist modules need to represent the future of genomic medicine within the NHS – these modules should include pharmocogenomics, polygenic risk, understanding of omics technolgies. For NHS Blood and Transplant – genomic testing is focused on blood and tissue typing. HLA typing for pharmocogenomics and disease association.
  • not an obvious need that the changes help

Would a trainee who completed this programme have a valuable role in the workforce in 3 years’ time? 

• Yes: 81% (78)
• No: 3% (3)
• Can’t comment: 16% (15)
• Please tell us why you don’t think a trainee who completed this programme have a valuable role in the workforce in 3 years’ time.
  • Not within the cancer section.
  • Too limited a range of exposure. Already very few trainees are fully ready to step into Band 7 roles by the end of the STP programme alone, especially those with no previous work experience in the field.
  • I put ‘no’ because I wanted to add a comment. I’m sure they would. However, that depends on the role and the service and I believe it would be limiting if cancer is reduced.

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

• Yes: 67% (64)
• No: 8% (8)
• Can’t comment: 25% (24)
• Please tell us why you don’t think your workplace would be able to deliver the programme with these proposed changes
  • I don’t know but I’m sure there will be significant challenges to changing the rotations and how they’re delivered so I’m glad you’re putting forward feedback gathering and making such considerations before moving forward with the proposed changes.
  • Do not do all tests locally, a significant proportion would require regional / national delivery
  • In regards to ” Analyse, interpret and report the results of diagnostic prenatal cases with sequence variants using appropriate current NGS technology e.g. Exome sequencing or Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS)” – WES/WGS for prenatals are only available at very few sites so this would not be possible to provide at a local level
  • No incentive for staff to train STPs. The curriculum is directive with what needs to be achieved, but it needs to be reasonable with what staff are willing and/or able to offer. WGS will not be offered for training for trainees in my department. On the old curriculum, it was hard enough to convince people to train me on techniques required to complete training activities. Some of these training activities will not be reasonable to achieve unless departments are fully invested in training STPs despite proclaiming their success in delivering training for previous cohorts.
  • Module S-G-S6-1 TA2 and 3: NIPT/NIPD is not a service provided by our workplace and training would need to be provided externally (as it is done currently).
    • Module S-G-S6-1 TA2 and 3: NIPT/NIPD is not a service provided by our workplace and training would need to be provided externally (as it is done currently). Module S-G-S7-1 TA 15: I am unsure whether we have capacity/expertise to provide training for analysis of mitochondrial variants detected by WGS in-house. This may need to be provided by specialist center/through university module. Also, does this TA need to be restricted to WGS?
  • NHSBT is not able to deliver cancer / rare disease teaching
  • The GLH I am currently training at does not carry out NIPT or NIPD testing or prenatal exome testing. We also often seek advice from a different GLH (specialist Mitochondrial service provider) when it comes to interpretation of potentially disease causing mitochondrial variants identified on WGS. Completion of training activities involving the above tasks may therefore require collaboration with other GLHs.
  • Unlikely to be able cover the entire programme independently as many of the tests included on the curriculum is not undertaken in the lab.

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: 81% (78)
• No: 4% (4)
• Can’t comment:  15% (14)
• 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
  • Not within the cancer section
  • They would require extensive additional training before they could fully work as a Band 7 registered scientist, in my opinion.
  • Cancer is a huge and growing burden in healthcare and it’s incredibly complex area of genetics that deserves strong focus and attention. I believe there will still be genomic scientists who take on roles that involve cancer cases and if they weren’t trained properly in these areas then No I wouldn’t feel safe if someone completed this programme is involved in delivering my care.
  • An STP undertaking training in Genomics would have to undergo an extensuve period of training in Cancer Genomics post registration, in order to practice safely at the level required of a Registered Clinical Scientist. They would be safe to practice in Genomics, but not Cancer Genomics.

Do you have any further comments on these proposed changes?

• I think as a trainee some of these may be particularly difficult to complete as there may not be the opportunities within the department like ‘Draft a plan to introduce a change that needs to be made in your department to include:’ this sounds like something better suited to professional practice
• Reduction of Somatic Cancer workload in Year 3 in aid of more comprehensive cover of Rare Disease is sorely needed. Cover of specialty areas such as cardiac genomics is required for core trainees, as nearly all specialty areas could be encountered in core WGS and targeted workload in non-specialty labs.
• N/A
• Agree with the changes to reduce cancer specific training and increase rare disease training
• The changes look good – TAs are both more descriptive, cover a more useful range of service tasks, will contribute to developing real service competency, and have been updated for modern testing techniques (i.e. inclusion of WGS, allowing “array-style analysis” to be performed by WGS etc). Some TAs may be difficult to deliver e.g. mitochondrial variant analysis and could benefit from centralised sessions being delivered by the two mito labs similarly to how the NIPD/T TA is delivered by a workshop at university or the R21 workshop is coordinated by GTAC. I also think the new cancer module is much improved and a more appropriate scope for genomics trainees.
• Fewer training activities for the cancer module in phase 3 is a welcome change as this is less relevant than the rare disease training for genomics STPs, especially in the final year when they’re contributing more to service work.
• It would be far better for trainees to spend more time doing lab work in each speciality. Currently the time allocation/credits for each speciality is too little for any meaningful consolidation of training, other than in the area where they are assigned to do their dissertation work.
• I think the reduction of the cancer module from 20 to 10 credits was a necessary change, I hope that this module will focus on germline testing rather than somatic testing.
• I think these are sensible updates that reflect the dynamic changes that have occurred in the Genomics diagnostic laboratories. The reduction in Cancer Genomics content/credits reflects the availability of the Cancer Genomics programme, which is now well established. This should have a positive impact on capacity to deliver the programme and create additional space for more detailed focus on complex RD analysis and reporting. It is good to see the inclusion of a population health training activity as this is an area of increasing relevance in Genomics. Being a little more distanced from the delivery of the programme is the balance of ETA and DTA appropriate as I note for some modules there are no ETAs?
• I’m concerned the changes would create too much stress and uncertainties for both the trainees and trainers than it is worth it. I personally do not see an issue that needs resolving by changing the curriculum. I read the stakeholders comments and do not agree with them. I believe the issues mentioned need to be addressed locally in different ways rather than changing the national curriculum. Maybe the school can work more closely with these trusts to ensure they’re better prepared to deliver the training.
• I predict that the credits for the cancer module will increase in the future – the future scope of the GLH relies on cross-working and somatic analysis, interpretation, understanding is starting to be incorporated into rare disease i.e., mosaic skin disorders etc. I believe the cancer module is something that lays more than just a foundation for genomic trainees, but also opportunity develop and ask relevant questions of rare disease to encourage CPD and fresh perspectives – for example ring 22 may not just be about the phelan-mcdermid-like diagnosis, cancer awareness and exposure may highlight the loss of other genes such as NF2 and SMARCB1. It is a part of our discipline that is currently the best positioned for MDT experience and wider professional development which is something trainees need.
• Glad to see the cancer genomics module reduced to 10 as it has been previously commented to feel like a check box rotation and that you dont get enough time on this rotation to consolidate learning. It also was not relevant to genomics in that level of depth.
• These questions aren’t really possible to answer without an explanation of the specific changes being made. Also very closed questions for a survey. Looking at the curriculum it seems ok but not really clear what problem shifting to more focus on RD is attempting to address. Curriculum still looks quite rigid and disease based rather than concept based, although it might be appropriate to suggest specific disease that cover a concept it would be good to provide flexibility to cover the required concepts using different disease. How does the curriculum prepare new workforce for areas of change in genomics? E.g. Increasing appreciation/use of polygenic models, move away from blanked application of mendelian models, pharmacogenomics, the advent of AI and it’s applications.
• I agree with the changes as there are Cancer Genomics Trainees who will be specialised in somatic services so there is no real requirement for RD trainees to have extensive training, a deeper focus on RD is beneficial. It is also better to merge paeds and adult genomics as there is so much overlap.
• The changes made address the previous gaps in the curriculum, I especially like the quality focus of some of the training activities. I think this is a very useful TA and sets trainees up well for the workplace: Participate in service delivery for rare disease testing, to include: Communication with other healthcare professionals Troubleshooting of testing I don’t like how PWS and AS testing has been split up into two different TAs, as these are tested for using the same method and pathway in the lab. This TA is a bit vague, there is a risk that this testing won’t be performed by every lab in the GLH, making it difficult for some trainees to complete: Participate in population health testing relevant to your local laboratory or region.
• I think there needs to be something in the modules relating to incidental findings and what to do with them, because we have specific guidelines now for this but it is important I believe that this topic is covered as alot of services are moving to a WGS platform and a clinical scientist needs to know where to go to review if an incidental finding should be reported or not. It also crosses over with cancer elements of the training as many of the genes listed on the incidental finding guidelines are cancer associated genes.
• I think that reducing the number of training activities within the cancer module (S-G-S8-1) is beneficial, as Genomics trainees will be able to focus more on the rare disease aspect of training instead. The training activities are also more generic, which allows trainees to fulfil curriculum specifications more easily, regardless of where they train. The biggest change in the curriculum is the removal of the specific assay background knowledge requirements for techniques such as MLPA. Removing these requirements risks trainees not developing sufficient background knowledge of the technical difficulties and limitations they may encounter while analysing data.
• much improved over my curriculum. WGS and more focus on rare disease over cancer especially important. Reflections also seem to have been down weighted in favour of actually doing cases which is so much better
• Can’t comment as cancer genomics scientist, not rare disease. NSHCS may have sent me this email in error.
• I am really pleased to see that training activities for the specialist modules now includes WGS and specific reference to variant interpretation and lists different sequence variants to cover. I also think that having specialist split between rare disease 1 and 2 is better than having the modules as paediatric and adult genomics, as there is a lot of overlap and testing in modern clinical labs is never binary in this sense. I like how the training activities have included more assay-based activities rather than disease-based e.g. sanger, NGS, WGS ect. with the obvious necessary exceptions such as CF, D/BMD, DM1. I am pleased that duty scientist is specifically included in specialist modules. this often isn’t covered enough during the training program, but is a core task which they will be expected to perform when qualified, so having more exposure of this role during training is great. I think the reflection components of training activities are still excessive. i think it would be better to have trainees reflect on each module as a whole rather than the individual training activities. The reason being that the individual training activities within each specialist module often intertwine across different cases or scenarios and therefore it would be better to reflect on the learning across the module to appreciate the complexity of genomics and testing rather than reflecting on a singular aspect of a module in one reflection per training activity. This would also be more efficient for trainees, i have personally had a lot of feedback from the current curriculum (from trainees and assessors) to say that there is too much reflection and it gets very repetitive.
• Rare disease 1 – I don’t see much difference between #2 and 3. NGS is quite narrow as more services are transitioning towards exomes and WGS (perhaps amend to high-throughput sequencing technology (not-WGS) e.g. NGS, WES ?). What are you trying to get the trainees explicitly to do here beyond SNV interpretation – recognise quality of results from these techniques, or is it HGVS focussed? Is the aim that RD1 is an introduction to variant interpretation and then it’s solidified by more variant interpretation in RD2 via WGS analysis? #8 of RD1 Is this achievable – what is the aim – are you looking for trainees to identify where marks have been lost in schemes and make a plan (as a retrospective task)?
• Re: S-G-S7-1 TA13 Review referrals; analyse, interpret and report the results of diagnostic, presymptomatic and carrier testing for FMR1 related conditions to include: Fragile X syndrome Premature Ovarian Failure (POF) Fragile X- associated tremor/ataxia syndrome – Diagnostic Fragile X syndrome testing is no longer a standalone test in the test directory (this is now all done by WGS) so I don’t know if this still needs to be included in this TA? as it would come under TA14. Or maybe confirmation testing needs to be included instead/as well or the wording changed slightly to account for this
• On a rapid reading it did not appear that sufficient attention had been given to equipping trainees with clear guidance on how to carry out proportionate and relevant public/patient/service user engagement in research design and delivery. Again, on a rapid reading it did not appear that sufficient muscle had been given to ensuring that trainees are exposed to the relevant Professional Code – which is as critical to practice readiness as to ethical rigour in research activity).
• I support the balance of the 2027 modules. I am however a little skeptical of the inherited cancer training activities being set at a DTA. Inherited cancer is still by large carried out in Rare and inherited disease labs by genomics CS (rather than cancer genomics trained CS or labs). I do think there ought to be ETA level activities focused on inherited cancer testing/screening. Possible risk of a skills gap developing in this area.
• The proposed changes appear to address shortcomings and irrelevancies in the current curriculum.
• God bless
• I think there need to be more clarity on what the difference is between rare disease 1 (RD1) and rare disease 2 (RD2). RD2 has a list of disease exemplars in the ‘Aims of this module’ section which make it clear what the module covers. Something similar for RD1 would be really helpful. Otherwise it looks like some of the TA for RD1 and RD2 are pretty much identical. For example it is not clear to me what the difference is between TA1 in RD1 and RD2 and it would appear that a trainee could theoretically submit the same evidence for both which is presumably not the intention. Similarly I am not clear on what the difference is between RD1 TA4 and RD2 TA10 – they both mention CNV analysis so there seems to be a bit of overlap between these two and it would be good to clarify what the expectation is here. Also CF is mentioned as an exemplar disease for RD2 but it is not in the TAs for RD2 so I think this needs to go in the aims for RD1.
• From my experience pre-STP and now these seem like a more useful weighting of module and a better representation of what we deal with
• It seems a sensible change in terms of balance. I cannot comment on whether a trainee would be able to deliver appropriate healthcare after going through the scheme as this is entirely trainee dependent
• Delivery of WGS content including mitochondrial variant analysis will be a significant change for our workplace training. I agree that this is the direction we need to transition in to, however I anticipate challenges delivering this to the ETA level, especially while we embed this training. TA#9 in RD1 – draft a plan to introduce a change that needs to be made in your department. Not sure how achievable this would be in RD1 in terms of timing and knowledge of the department and opportunities in the early stages of training.
• Overall I do think the changes will be beneficial to the trainees and those who organise the training. I like how the different common genetic diseases that we test for have been split out as you generally rotate to different disease areas so it will be easier to get them signed off at once. I do think there will be a lot of overlap with the more general competencies. For example ‘Perform interpretation of sequence variants for patients referred for investigation of rare disease and make recommendations for further testing required to reclassify variants, to include: missense, nonsense, splice site, indels and frameshifts.’ could be done in most disease areas.  I think it would make more sense for the whole genome sequencing competencies in Rare Disease 2 to be combined as the analysis would be done together and the results of each type of analysis (STR/SNV) etc. would affect how we report the results. If it is kept as it is I think most trainees will submit them all together anyway. For the observed communication events I think this one (provide an urgent result from an investigation for rare disease to another healthcare professional) that is in a few of the modules would be difficult to get involved in for a real life case as I have been working as a clinical scientist for 3 years and not to give an urgent result over the phone. It would be better I think for a more general scenario for instant ‘answer queries from healthcare professionals over the phone’ as I have had to do that a lot.
• I think that these proposed changes are excellent! Getting rid of the somewhat arbitrary separation between paediatric and adult disorders should make submitting evidence for training activities much less complicated. The training activities also cover a wider range of areas and are more reflective of the role of a clinical scientist. Core disorders are still covered but there is more room for flexibility in other training activities which would help STPs who are based in smaller laboratories who may not offer this testing for their GLH.
• Good that this module focuses primarily on rare disease rather than cancer given there is a separate STP for this but the cancer module still includes a lot of the topics from the old curriculum so is it actually smaller or is it just made to look smaller? Seems odd that some conditions have separate training activities I. E. PWS/Angelman when testing method is the same or D/DM1/FRAX/other repeat disorders. The need to reflect at multiple time points for a training activity is not useful in a scientific position. Reflecting can be useful for more complex cases/when something has gone wrong/when troubleshooting or when thinking about a patient’s journey however exposing individuals to more cases and providing time to actually perform routine work would be much more beneficial.
• I have ticked can’t comment for most questions because i have no involvement in delivering most aspects of Genomics STP training as I work in somatic cancer. I wish to comment only on the Cancer module. I very much welcome the reduction to 10 credits, and the focus only on CML for haemato-oncology as delivering ALL and AML verged on the impossible. I agree with the rationale for the changes to the Cancer module.
• Overall very pleased with the changes made, drastic improvement on the 2022 curriculum particularly regarding WGS inclusion, reduced cancer content and better structuring of TAs across modules/disease types. Feedback regarding some specific TAs:
  • S-BG-R1-2 TA3 now that the intro modules are being delivered centrally, the wording of this TA needs to be changed as by definition trainees are not observing a pipeline internal to their lab, this will also avoid assessor confusion.
  • S-G-S5-1 TA8 TA9 good to see some quality added to the curriculum but please note quality teams to date have had very little involvement in STP training/marking so will need support with identifying suitable tasks for trainees to do and marking them at the right level.
  • S-G-S6-1 TA2 TA3 RE NIPT NIPD essential these are delivered and assessed through the university curriculum as these tests are only performed at 2/7 GLHs.
  • S-G-S6-1 TA7 prenatal WES/WGS, it’s very rare for prenatals to have WGS due to the 84 day TAT, they usually get R14 delivered at just 1/7 GLHs, this GLH may need to be involved in national training and marking to fulfil this TA.
  • S-G-S7-1 TA16 TA17 good to see some quality added to the curriculum but please note quality teams to date have had very little involvement in STP training/marking so will need support with identifying suitable tasks for trainees to do and marking them at the right level.
  • S-G-S7-1 TA6 good to see risk calculations added to the curriculum but this will need to be delivered through the university, scientists at many labs do not feel confident with this themselves or explaining/marking this work.
  • S-G-S7-1 TA9 non-coding variants are extremely rarely reported at present, a strategy will be needed for how to expose STPs to this when the qualified scientists training them are not yet trained/competent themselves!
  • S-G-S7-1 TA15 most labs do not analyse/interpret mitochondrial variants through WGS, they simply check population frequency and if it is low send the case to a specialist GLH for further analysis so a plan is needed for how to deliver this to trainees not based at mito specialist labs.
  • S-G-S8-1 Great so see the cancer module halved in size but really it should be removed entirely, cancer STPs do not do have a specialist rare disease module, this is unfair and takes away time from genomics STPs who could be learning RD in more detail.
• – Combined triple repeat disorders, HD testing, DM1 testing and FMR1 testing – these are all triplet repeat disorders so why separate them out? – FRAX is not completely relevant anymore – removed as a standalone testing indication – could still fall under targeted familial testing.  – Glad to see WGS included – this is long overdue.  – Good to see MCC included Appreciate that reflection is important but scientific knowledge and practice is too. Cancer module – dropped down amount of credits but still looks like the same amount of work.
• There seems to be a lot of reflective work in several aspects of the programme. Whilst reflective practice is good, hands on physical experience will always prove invaluable. Rather than the reflection, lets see more physical involvement in the heart of the laboratory processes. The STP is developing more towards the old A grade training to try and give more hands on experience. Don’t undo that by all the unnecessary reflection. It doesn’t train a potential scientist in the skills required to do the job of the scientist. I can see the benefits of it but it simplifies requirements compared to the level of work for previous STP alumni.
• Specific TAs requiring involvement in an EQA report/scheme and raising an incident are very good inclusions. TA1 in both S-G-S5-1 and S-G-S7-1 appear to be asking the same thing although one is a DTA and one is an ETA there might be confusion with the overlap of these. Similarly with TA10 and TA19 (both of these are DTAs). When these modules were separated as paediatric vs adult it was clearer that there were two different ‘services’, but these may not be delivered in such a structured manner so it might be difficult to differentiate between the two. There still could be overlap considered with the more generic analysis TAs in S-G-S5-1 (2. sequence variants, 3. NGS, 4. CNV) and the more specific disease examples in S-G-S7-1 as many of these diseases will be tested by the same method. The slimmed down cancer module (S-G-S8-1) looks a lot better with a more manageable breakdown of requirements and submissions. As a genomics STP alumni it makes more sense to have more weighting behind the RD modules whilst appreciating that knowledge on cancer testing is valuable (though arguably this could still focus more on inherited and less on somatic, but that is perhaps a personal preference).
• – Too much overlap between TA 1 for Modules S-G-S5-1 and S-G-S7-1? Unclear what is meant by “issues arising with sample preparation”, this does not sound like a Duty Scientist issue. This example should be removed and/or replaced with somethig relevant to the Duty Scientist role.
  • Module S-G-S5-1- TA 4: maybe this should rather be a DTA? It seems unlikely that we can provide sufficient experience in service for the trainees to qualify as an ETA. – TA 9: this TA should rather be in module S-C1-3
  • Module S-G-S7-1 – TA 7: what is meant by “population health testing”? It doesn’t sound like this can be covered in my workplace. This TA should be removed or the learning outcomes should be more explicit to help the trainees and trainers understand what is intended by this TA. Also need to assess whether all the training places can provide this training before adding to the curriculum. – TA 14: should be a DTA rather than an ETA. It is unlikely that repeat expansions will be encountered by trainees during service work on their rotation.  – TA 16: “and document the findings” should be removed.
  • Module S-G-S8-1 – TA8: Can this just be done as a CBD? it seems unlikely that trainees will get the opportunity to present a case at a cancer MDT during their rotation. Also significant overlap with TA 9 or 10, unless this TA is restricted to solid tumour? What does GTAB stand for? Please avoid acronyms or provide the full name in the TA information section.
• These changes I feel will limit Genomics trainees to practising within Rare Disease Genomics once the programme is completed as the Cancer genomics skills covered are not sufficient to produce a trainee who is competent in enough acquired cancer knowledge.
• Rare Disease 1 -PST testing is not relevant to Cystic Fibrosis. Rare Disease 2 -NB Sanger should be capitalised. I think the inclusion of UKAS experience/knowledge and Root cause analysis is a great inclusion.
• Our Clinical Scientist training needs to provide some exposure of genomics that does not solely focus on rare conditions and cancer. A broader background will help create a workforce who are able to be flexible as techniques/technology changes and to introduce pharmocogenomics / polygenic risk into routine healthcare over the next 5-7 years.
• Prenatal Genomics TA 10 and 11 – trainees may not have the opportunity to communicate with other healthcare professionals specifically in regards to prenatal testing if they are not spending much time doing prenatal service work
  • Rare Disease 2 TA 9 – while analysis of non-coding variants is an important skill, it may be difficult for a trainee to achieve competency in this task in a reasonable time frame as actionable non-coding variants are significantly less common than actionable coding variants
  • I think the overall restructuring (more focus on WGS, removing the Paediatric/Prenatal/Adult split which significantly complicated TA sign off, slightly less time spent on Cancer) is an improvement on the 2022 curriculum.
  • Overall, I feel like this is a huge improvements, but have a few comments:
  • Rare Disease 2 TA4 & TA5 – PWS/AS have significant overlap and could be combined
  • Rare Disease 2 TA11 to TA14 – the repeat expansions tests are specialised, and as these have overlapping testing strategies could be combined
• I think the proposed changes of the specialty modules organise the curriculum in a much more logical way for the Genomics specialty which will make the delivery of training and signing off of TAs on OneFile much easier and more streamlined.
• Cancer Genomics modules should be dropped from the Genomics curriculum. It places too greater a burden on the host laboratory to deliver training simultaneously to both Cancer Genomics and Genomics STPs.
• The reduction in breadth and complexity of the Cancer component means that core principles are covered whilst making it more deliverable to the Genomics trainees.
• These questions relate to year 2, I am year 1
• how will NIPD/NIPT/mitochondrial/fetal WGS/other specialist tests be covered? – very few labs offer these services, can the content be provided by the university or not covered at all in STP curriculam as count as too specialised?
  • why is the reflective practice guidance so detailed for the prenatal module but not for rare disease 1 and 2? will be confusing for trainees to have such different information provided, needs to be standardised
  • the previous artificial separation of paediatric and adult disorders is much improved by having rare disease modules, but why can’t RD 1 and 2 follow straight on from each other?
  • S-G S5 rare disease 1 #8 – good to reflect on EQA but what if lab has no corrective actions to implement? could this be more general and a reflection on the comments in summary reports that affect all labs?
  • S-G S5 1 rare disease 1 #4 – slightly odd phrasing if this is meant to mean numerical and structural chromosome abnormalities (as traditionally detected by karyotyping)
• It’s good to see that WGS has been included on the curriculum. We think this is a positive addition.
• As a lab we have concerns about topics that are specialist areas such as NIPD/T, prenatal exomes, mitochondrial testing. Is it necessary for these to be included on the curriculum i.e. is there the capacity in the system for the training to be delivered, have you checked that the current approaches for NIPD/T, prenatal exomes are still sustainable? Would it be possible for these areas to be delivered just from an academic perspective?
• With regard to the cancer module TA 6 should include breast as well as ovarian cancer. It is important that trainees cover this testing from a germline perspective. There should also be a TA on germline testing for polyposis, this was previously on the curriculum but seems to have been removed.
• For both of the rare disease module there are TAs for duty scientist. We think that this just needs to be covered once.
• For rare disease 1 TA7 can you re-look at the inclusion of presymptomatic testing for CF. Testing tends to be diagnostic, carrier, NBS. For TA8 can you relook at the wording about ‘corrective actions for EQA’, it may be that the labs don’t have any correctives actions as hopefully they will have the correct result. Could it be worded more along the lines of the trainee having an awareness of the outcomes of EQA and what would happen if there was poor performance?
• In general the flow and structure of the modules should be looked at so they are consistent. At the moment it differs between module.

Do the changes to the programme learning outcomes more accurately summarise the learning from the programme?

• Yes: 77% (74
• No: 8% (8)
• Can’t comment: 15% (14)
• Please tell us why you don’t think this change more accurately summarise the learning from the programme.
  • Same concept but generic wording for the 2027 LOs
  • I feel the 2025 outcomes are more specific to what is needed from the learning, whereas the 2027 leaves a lot more room for interpretation, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing; it just means there is more room to miss certain aspects of what’s needed.
  • Needs to include the specifics and not just generic genomic investigations
  • The outcomes suggest that in the short amount of time of rotating into an area STPs will be competent to analyse, interpret and report results. In reality, they mostly shadow experienced staff and/or attempt retrospective analysis of samples and then try to interpret and write reports with a lot of input from trainers. there is not much time for repetition and embedding of learning
  • The learning outcomes are too vague and would allow a very limited scope of practice throughout training (despite the training activities). The learning outcomes need to have some level of detail included to be useful to the trainees and those developing the format of the training programme within a department.
  • They are more broad without specific considerations. An equivalency would be a learning outcome for a teacher being ‘to teach’, no mention of subject specific requirements or considerations.
  • Trainees need to have hands on experience covering a range of referrals, testing etc. This needs specifying and defining like in the 2025 learning outcomes. My diluting the outcomes, people can be ‘signed off’ as meeting a competence or STP standard by covering a smaller range of referrals.
  • They do far too little of Cancer Genomics to obtain competency. It would be better to remove Cancer Genomics altogther in order to give them greater depth of exposure to achieve the learning outcomes from the Genomics curriculum.

Do you have any further comments on the proposed changes to the programme learning outcomes?

• The simplification of PLOs is clear and appreciated.
• N/A
• The learning outcomes do not reflect the reality of the training – they suggest full competency whilst for many assays this is not possible in their short rotations.
• They are more succinct and also provide scope for wider learning and development for participants of the programme.
• I think creating room for flexibility in how the TAs are addressed is always a good thing. Making the previous specifics as recommendations and guidance in how these TAs are addressed would be very helpful.
• NO
• It is more generic but this may be more representative for those who work in labs that can’t contribute towards speciality training
• Suggested changes seem acceptable but not really clear on their purpose. My personal opinion is that the current/suggested curriculum is very dated and isn’t going to be ensuring we have scientists with suitable skills for the future of genomics.
• There should be an inclusion of an emphasis on trainees being involved with experience in delivering some service work while rotating through the specialty modules. During recent years I think there has been a regression in the quality of training delivered when trainees are not expected to always be involved at all in the delivering of the tests covered by the modules and be integrated into the teams delivering this testing repertoire. Training has moved moved towards a model of being in the majority delivered remotely or online. This is doing a disservice to the training delivered to the STPs and our future workforce.
• See comments above. They apply also to the Summary of Changes.
• Change are less prescriptive and more future proof.
• Curriculum changes need to be ratified by individual training centres as expectations are not aligned between the NSHCS and Trusts.
• Much better. While practically it doesn’t change what the work is it makes sourcing the evidence much easier
• It leaves more scope for interpretation. Sometimes the current scheme is too specific which can be really difficult but I guess the issue in being more open to interpretation is that trainees may have a wider range of experiences of the training
• I feel point 4 should still mention the use of bioinformatic tools.
• I think the new learning objectives are clear and concise.
• The suggested changes are more vague – fine if you are open to less standardised practice when training based on how each laboratory trains people. Not good if you expect specific things to be covered.
• clearer and to the point
• No -i do have comments on the Introductory modules and DOPs in that year too. 1) the DOPs for the rotational module aren’t aligned with the level of experience a trainee will have gained at that point or by shadowing eg generate a report, analysis of molecular result or chromosomal result. 2) the DOPs for the Intro to BI seem complex for this rotation which is again primarily shadowing. 3) The DOPs are very repetitive in general.
• The changes mean it will be easier to deliver Cancer Genomics training to Genomics STPs as the subject matter is far more sensible. However, I don’t believe that most Genomics STPs benefit from the Cancer Genomics modules in terms of their ability to perform as a Registered Clinical Scientist. Most elements of Cancer Genomics training have become a tick box exercise to be completed rather than anything of value to clinical practice.

Lead Editor response

• P1: New module – Prenatal Genomics – apply change
• P2: New module – Rare Disease 1 – edit and apply change
• P3: New module – Rare Disease 2 – edit and apply change
• P4: Cancer module – apply change
• P5: Programme learning outcomes – apply change

Please provide a brief rationale for your decisions

I would like to thank everyone who provided feedback on the new proposed curriculum. With almost 100 respondents there was very good engagement from those involved with training STP trainees in Genomics.

Overall, there was very positive feedback around the proposed changes. 80% of respondents said that the changes provide beneficial skills and knowledge to trainees, with only 5% stating No for this question. The comments from those who said No were focused on the reduction in the Cancer module credits and Training Activities. This feedback has been taken on board, and I would like to reassure those who are concerned about this change that this was debated extensively during the writing of the new curriculum, and from stakeholder feedback received prior to the curriculum periodic review. From generic feedback we’ve received for the new curriculum there are many comments from individuals that are in agreement that the reduction to Cancer module is needed, for example ‘The reduction in breadth and complexity of the Cancer component means that core principles are covered whilst making it more deliverable to the Genomics trainees.’ While there was debate, there was agreement that based on feedback and what would be best for trainees’ learning, that it would be beneficial to reduce the Cancer module, especially in light of most laboratories taking on more Cancer Genomics trainees to enable specialised training in Cancer areas. This change will also allow trainees and laboratories to focus more on service delivery training for trainees within Rare Disease, Prenatal and Reproductive Medicine areas for example.

For the question ‘Do these changes address a need in your workplace?’  69% answered Yes and 9% No, with comments noting changes to phase 1 module needed, however this is difficult when this module is also used extensively for non-Genomics trainees so cannot be too specialised, however I would note that laboratories can provide greater focus on aspects they feel are lacking during this time to their Genomics specialist trainees as they wish.  Someone noted ‘The specialist modules need to represent the future of genomic medicine within the NHS – these modules should include pharmocogenomics, polygenic risk, understanding of omics technolgies.’ The new curriculum has had to strike a balance between bringing in newer technologies and initiatives, and future-proofing the curriculum, but also ensuring that the Training Activities in place are activities of the role that a trainee can be trained on specifically and that they will be able to encounter. Future revisions to the curriculum can potentially bring in new Training Activities for other new technologies as they become more utilised within Clinical Diagnostic laboratories.

For further questions the vast majority of respondents had a positive response, including 81% responding Yes (and only 4% No) to ‘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?’. Comments from those who responded No also had a focus on the Cancer module.

Other comments note ‘I think these are sensible updates that reflect the dynamic changes that have occurred in the Genomics diagnostic laboratories.’, ‘The changes made address the previous gaps in the curriculum, I especially like the quality focus of some of the training activities.’. As discussed with the reasons for the changes to the curriculum proposed, a comment reflects this with ‘I think the proposed changes of the specialty modules organise the curriculum in a much more logical way for the Genomics specialty which will make the delivery of training and signing off of TAs on OneFile much easier and more streamlined.’ These changes will help to reduce duplication and make Training Activity evidencing and assessment more streamlined for both trainees and trainers.

For the learning outcomes, feedback primarily focused on the increased flexibility provided which was welcomed.

Specialty Lead Editor signature: G Ryan
Date: 6 July 2026

Major change - edit change control

Completed by the National School of Healthcare Science