Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 54 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 2958 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

EC UK Quality Assurance Committee on CPD requirement

Former Community Member
Former Community Member

Quality Assurance Committee on CPD requirement



Published: 01/11/2018

 



All Engineering Council registrants are committed to maintaining and enhancing their competence, which means undertaking Continuing Professional Development (CPD).

From 1 January 2019, licensed members will be required to sample their registrants’ CPD and sampling activity will become part of the licence review process.
Professionally active registrants who persistently do not respond to or engage with requests for CPD records from their institution risk removal from the Engineering Council Register.


Parents
  • 0
    Alasdair,

    i agree wholeheartedly - you maybe missed my earlier post which made exactly that point - that, like it or not, UKSPEC does lay down prescriptive requirements and, as a PRI, if the task fell to me to review ongoing CPD (which I agree should be done regularly, probably 3-yearly), as ongoing affirmation of continued fitness to remain registered, as opposed to simply meeting IET requirements, hence subject to UKSPEC, I would have no choice but to do so against the UKSPEC requirements, however much I disagree with them. 


    I therefore advocated that, if my viewpoint is shared by others, we should be attempting to persuade EC of the need to change those requirements in favour of CPD being evidenced, by preference, by results/achievements, on the basis that they can only have been achieved by pursuing suitable and sufficient CPD. 


    Andy responded by saying that he didn't see it as too onerous and felt it likely that submission of an updated CV or record of recent achievements may well be accepted as sufficient evidence. That led to my latest response, but that was all a development of my initial point which was exactly the point that you make.
Reply
  • 0
    Alasdair,

    i agree wholeheartedly - you maybe missed my earlier post which made exactly that point - that, like it or not, UKSPEC does lay down prescriptive requirements and, as a PRI, if the task fell to me to review ongoing CPD (which I agree should be done regularly, probably 3-yearly), as ongoing affirmation of continued fitness to remain registered, as opposed to simply meeting IET requirements, hence subject to UKSPEC, I would have no choice but to do so against the UKSPEC requirements, however much I disagree with them. 


    I therefore advocated that, if my viewpoint is shared by others, we should be attempting to persuade EC of the need to change those requirements in favour of CPD being evidenced, by preference, by results/achievements, on the basis that they can only have been achieved by pursuing suitable and sufficient CPD. 


    Andy responded by saying that he didn't see it as too onerous and felt it likely that submission of an updated CV or record of recent achievements may well be accepted as sufficient evidence. That led to my latest response, but that was all a development of my initial point which was exactly the point that you make.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines