2025 Scientist Training Programme structure review

Stakeholder feedback

All stakeholder feedback is presented verbatim and was collected between January 2024 and October 2025 through the Curriculum Library.

The model used for the different types of modules

Rotation modules

• I don’t get the impression that the first year rotations are working particularly well for our trainees.  The observational nature is proving frustrating when they are very keen to learn by doing and to help out practically.  I don’t know if that’s a more general issue but our current trainee, who has just finished her first year, felt it was a common experience for her cohort.  I’ve sent her the link so she can give her own feedback (as a general suggestion rather than leading her to a particular comment).
• I think the rotational modules could be shortened or adapted to be more achievable within a clinical engineering setting. Personally, I found it financially challenging to stretch the £2,000 training budget to cover both the two-month teaching block in London and three separate rotations. None of these rotations could be completed at my base hospital, and two required overnight accommodation. Introducing greater flexibility in the curriculum by reducing the duration or number of rotational modules, or by minimising the need for travel, could make a meaningful difference. These kinds of adjustments would be greatly appreciated and could help create a more balanced and accessible experience for all trainees, regardless of location and access to local services.

The elements in modules

Training activities

• Overall good change to state the areas to observe as this makes rotation placements easier to structure. Improvements I feel to happen is to state something like ‘Describe the INSERT TEST(S) HERE and reflect on the process’. I feel that this allows the expectation to the student to be clearer. I personally expect the student to provide a basic overview of the test or test being observed and not simply a reflection on how they felt (Emotive reflection is warranted in most cases but I feel the students need to feel they are expected to observe and engage on what is happening on their observation.
• Overall written competencies need to be abolished or have some degree of standardization (max one page of writing). There is way too much variation in expectations across assessors, some being nitpicky on useless corrections which wastes training time, others being far too lenient with no feedback whatsoever. Assessors should only be allowed to give feedback if they had specific training to do so, not just because they are HCPC registered. Again – scrap competencies – replace all with DOPS and CBDs to prevent training centers from dumping us into an office and staring at a pc all day.

The work-based assessment standards

Training activities standard

• The amount of reflection that is being asked for in the new curriculum is far too much. It is inhibitive to actual learning of content and not necessary. Reflecting at two times points for two of the three types of training activity, and one time point for the other type is overkill for many competencies. It can feel very forced to do so. Particularly when the activity shadowed is particularly technical such as observing DNA extraction. It is just not a good activity to reflect on.  Reflecting on guidelines, MDTs, good and bad practice, and patient interactions are good examples. But for those who don’t ever see patients, many activities are not suited to reflection and it doesn’t provide any sort of competence.
• The 2022 cohort have repeatedly been told that the training activity standard does not apply to them yet the curriculum online has changed meaning there is no record of the curriculum the 2022 cohort are expected to be following. This means that trainees and assessors have no clear guidance regarding the requirements for training activities in the 2022 cohort.

Other elements of the Scientist Training Programme

• I am very concerned that the expectation of phase 2 and phase 3 specialist modules being done strictly in order will reduce our capacity to support trainees. Previously we have mixed training from the specialist modules as some are best carried out as and when they coincide with clinical work. There is little dependency of phase 3 on phase 2, so there really isn’t a need to complete 2 before 3. It would be much more helpful for year 2 progress to be more flexible. Personally, as a training officer I tend to ask specialist trainees to hold off submitting a lot of evidence during the first year of the specialist placement as they usually have better, broader evidence later in the training which provides more solid evidence and more potential for reflection from the trainee.
• The phased nature of the curriculum is not consistent with the module content for Radiation Safety and Diagnostic Radiology [SPE1-6-23]. I appreciate that the phased nature does make sense in some specialisms where phase 3 modules appear to build on phase 2 content, but this is not true of all curricula in STP. In SPE1-6-23, the modules are grouped thematically not developmentally. While items within a module build from one to another, the modules do not. Completing 100% of phase 2 in year 2 does not support our trainees to develop.
• I recognise that you want a system that can be applied to all areas of Healthcare Science, so I am not asking for a local exception. I request that you broaden your approach to completing ~50% of all specialism competencies in year 2 rather than 100% of a specific subset. Under this request, departments who want to deliver specific modules in specific years would still be able to do so. Please can you explain any barriers to implementing such a system? If I can understand your concerns, perhaps we can find a way to address them? Thank you, Katie Howard (katie.howard@nhs.net)
• The way in which the National School of Healthcare Science expects that the modules will be completed in two phases does not work well for the Nuclear Medicine specialism. It is typical that trainees will cover assessments from various modules concurrently, therefore if the school monitors progress against the phased system then the outcome may not be representative of the work completed.
• Absolutely poor work life balance – unreasonable expectations with regards to travel that were not discussed via contract. The STP is only suitable for people who have minimal caring responsibilities because the universities do not care and are inflexible.

Proposed changes

Module specification: training activities

NSHCS work-based assessment standard

Module type specifications: rotation module

Rationale for change

The considerations are a legacy of the “old” curriculum. The purpose and function of considerations is difficult to define and the inclusion in the curriculum can cause confusion for trainers and trainees, particularly where they are taken to be a mandatory checklist for evidence. With the introduction of the NSHCS work-based assessment standards, reflection is required for all training activities. Support with reflection is being requested by trainees and trainers who, currently, have little experience of this approach. The reflective practice guidance aims to provide support for both trainers and trainees with individualised reflection on the training activity. The reflective practice guidance, in effect, seeks to contextualise the considerations within the framework of the WBA standards for the ‘new’ curriculum. As a results of this change, edits to the Work-based Assessment Standards are required.

The OCE text has been changed to provide additional clarity on the purpose of the assessment for all specialties. There are frequent questions about this OCE, particularly from non-patient facing specialties who feel than cannot complete this OCE.

Feedback on several points raised here have already been addressed with the introduction of the STP progression strategy and work-based assessment standards.

Approval process

Paper presented to STP Core Lead Editor (non-quorate) – proposed changes supported.

School Senior Leadership Team approval
Meeting date: 29 January 2026