The Review Process

The timing of the professional conversations will be aligned to our submission points that are scheduled throughout the year. Your professional conversation will be conducted by two internal reviewers who have been through appropriate training and standardisation activity. You will be notified of your review team during the process. A deliberate effort is made to ensure that participants and reviewers are not based in the same Faculty. Moreover, upon notification of the review team, you have the opportunity to signal to the APEX administrator any potential conflicts of interest or other concerns with the selected reviewer(s). The administrator will attempt to accommodate and respond to your concerns, reassigning reviewers if necessary.

The professional conversation is recorded and uploaded to Panopto and you are given access so you can review your conversation afterwards. A representative sample of recorded conversations is sent to our External Verifier from across the categories of Fellowship, including all borderline submissions and referrals to be considered at the moderation meeting. Additional access is limited to the administration team, the APEX co-ordinator, and if required moderation panel members. All materials are stored in compliance with relevant University policies and in compliance with GDPR guidelines. All reviewers are asked to respect the confidentiality of all those participating in the conversation process.

After each professional conversation, the reviewers will discuss whether the submission has met the required standard for Fellowship. If your reviewers collectively agree that the professional conversation meets the required standard, the outcome is forwarded to the Verification and Award Panel. If the reviewers cannot reach agreement, then your professional conversation, annotated CPD record, and advocate statements will be considered at a moderation meeting. In advance of the moderation meeting, the APEX administrator will complete a moderation summary form for each submission under review which captures the overall decision from the respective reviewers. The form is also used to formally log the decision of moderation meeting, and any feedback to be provided to you.

At this moderation meeting, the review team can make a specific decision:

• Minor Amendments - if the review team felt that the professional conversation fell just short of meeting the required standard, commensurate with the category of fellowship being applied for, then you can either re-take the professional conversation without joining a cohort or prepare a short, written submission that directly addresses the areas that were not sufficiently covered during the professional conversation. A professional conversation can be booked at the convenience of the review team, and a decision can be made under Chair’s Action in line with the wider quality assurance procedures for APEX.

• Minor amendments would be advised if an additional detail was needed around specific criteria. A common example is further development to demonstrate engagement with K5 and K6.

• Major Amendments - if the review team felt that the professional conversation more significantly failed to address the required standard of fellowship, then you will be invited to re-take the professional conversation by joining a new professional conversation cohort. Alternatively, you may wish to withdraw from the professional conversation route and switch to the written route. In that instance having attended the compulsory orientation and micro-clinics you submit a draft directly to APEX for review.

Major amendments would be advised if a significant number of criteria were not met during the professional conversation. For example, there may be insufficient reference to to the UKPSF dimensions or there is a notable lack of reference to academic literature underpinning the pedagogic rationale for the participant’s approach.

Review Process - Professional Conversation