Now that the VLE is up and running, and we have the e-learning courses available, I can look back at the reporting.
I’ve mentioned previously about the reporting solution we are implementing. When I last tried to work on this, we were looking at course attendances as the source of data. Having used these attendances, our corporate compliance was awful! It was clear that whilst the reporting system worked correctly, our underlying data was not in the correct format to allow it to work in this way.
As a Trust, we’ve been using competency functionality within (the OLM component within) ESR to allow us to report compliance. Essentially, our staff gain a competency by completing a course, and we then use these competencies to gauge our compliance against. In principle, this all works fine – however we’ve also had some competencies which have been directly added in (using ‘Fastpath’ to indicate that the staff member is compliant – without a course attendance to match to – as these staff are compliant due to the amount of time they’ve been practicing the skill, rather than undertaking a course to show they are compliant).
What this then means is that when I try and base our compliance solely on a course attendance, all of the staff who had the competency manually added all show as being non-compliant (as they never attended a course – and therefore there is no record to make them compliant). For this reason I had to switch the reporting source from the course attendance to the competencies themselves.
Changing over to reporting from the competencies suddenly gave a massive increase in compliance on the reporting package. Things were looking a lot more positive. Whilst the numbers still aren’t up to the level they should be, they are suddenly looking a lot more accurate. I now had the opportunity to share this with a few colleagues working in my local area.
Unfortunately, following this share to just a few people, a new issue surfaced. Of the few people who reviewed their own compliance a couple noted that they were showing as being non-compliant when they were sure that they were compliant. Upon investigation of the underlying data, their thoughts were confirmed, and it was clear an issue was in existence.
The issue soon became clear, and was as follows. The WIRED reporting system looks for the date a person became compliant – then knowing the duration of compliance, can return a compliance status. However the competency functionality within ESR works differently to this.
If a member of staff’s ESR competency expires before they refresh their training – the staff member is given a new competency (with new start date and new end date). If however the staff member refreshes their training before their competency expires, rather than issuing a new competency, ESR extends the end date of the current competency (meaning the start date remains as it was before).
Therefore, as WIRED looks at the start date for the competency, for these where the start date is not changed (or reissued as is actually the case) – the start date not changing makes it seem that the staff member is actually out of date (non-compliant), rather than in-date (compliant) as they actually are.
It’s another spanner in the works which will need fixing…….