Looks like click bait but it is not. In the almost 5hr meeting on 19 June 2024 with HPCSA, QCTO, HWSETA, Ben Van As, and members of the focus group who developed the curriculum (including myself) this was the outcome. HPCSA say they will not move on the matter of the removal of the word “emergency” from the title of all three first aid programs. And QCTO say they will not move on changing the skills program ID’s if the titles must change. If the skills program ID’s change SDP’s must apply for them as if they are new programs. This was despite resistance from myself and others. This is all about the titles changing. Actual changes to the content of the basic, intermediate, and advanced curricula are zero to extremely small. If HPCSA left the titles alone, the programs would carry on with none, or only slight content changes. But instead they are being pulled.
I aim to make this painless for my existing clients because as new QCTO skills programs are established (e.g. the 18 OHS ones that are coming soon) I will add the replacement first aid ones to client OHS applications and run them so it does not cost the client more.
This is handled in the way the cost of a QCTO SDP application has three components:
If you are applying, or are already accredited to train QCTO first aid (SP230801, 230802, 230803).
If you are about to apply for QCTO first aid:
I am not sure what to recommend because I do not know two things even after raising them both in the meeting. I do not know how long it will take for QCTO and HWSETA to apply the changes and do their administration for the replacements, and I do not know how long the teach out period will be.
But if I was an SDP training first aid as a core product I would do this:
HPCSA (Ben van Nugteren) say they will not move on the removal of the word “emergency” from the titles of all three QCTO programs.
QCTO (Lufuno Thovhakale) say they will not move on changing the skills program ID’s if the titles must change, and therefore they are seen by QCTO as different skills programs (despite the content changes being zero to tiny).
The irony of all this is the focus group that developed the QCTO first aid curricula did not actually name the programs using the word “emergency”. That was QCTO and HWSETA.
The result though, is that an SDP application must be made for the three QCTO first aid skills programs that replace the three existing ones being SP230801, 230802, 230803, when they are ready. This will be an extension of scope application.
This is only about the word “emergency” in the title of all three first aid skills programs which Ben Van Nugteren at HPCSA says he cannot abide with. NB: If the word “emergency” were not in the titles of all three QCTO first aid skills programs, this would not have created a scenario where reapplication would be necessary.
I threw together some notes during the meeting.
The notes are given below as is. I unfortunately do not have time to tidy them up after spending 5hrs in this meeting.
HPCSA were given a presentation by Ben van As (HWSETA consultant) on how the process of SDP accreditation works, and what qualifications are.
HPCSA (Simpiwe Sobuwa) asked “how we define first aid”.
Ben van As explained it in the context of what the learner will be able to do.
HPCSA asked how we define the levels and again asked why the curriculum says the advanced requires registration with HPCSA. This was explained last time, but was explained again that the facilitator must be on NQF Level 5 and HPCSA or SANC registered to train first aid. It does not require the learner to do the course via HPCSA or register with HPCSA.
35mins on Teams clock
Graham noted that the three QCTO curricula originated from the department of labour levels of first aid, and then the unit standards as well, but with gaps filled in.
35mins
Ben Van Nugteren acknowledges this as a skills program and says he understands it is in the 8 – 60 credit zone (it is not, it is in the 2 – 6 credit zone). He notes that HPCSA only deals with organisations registered with DHET. He says he wants clarity on who evaluates the learning material and the stuff that is happening in the classroom. He is concerned that there is not a process by which this is done.
I feel like I want to agree with Ben on this. Learning material should have some kind of verification process because it is where the rubber meets the road. QCTO only wants to ensure that SDP’s show a document where a program matrix is filled in linking each criteria to a page number. Whether or not that page number links to content that is correct or not is treated as completely irrelevant to the QCTO. As a result, there is a lot of material bought and sold that is not necessarily correct. I expressed this.
52mins
Lufuno addressed the issue of DHET registration, and how this program falls under a different sub framework. He also noted that QCTO does not deal with material to protect themselves from the issue of intellectual property. However, if a provider submits material that is not sufficient and relevant it will be rejected by the QCTO. So it seems there is some area of agreement where material is at least in part checked.
1 hour
Ben Van Nugteren came back on the learning material issue. He was expressing he was not entirely satisfied with the feedback on this, and then his mic cut off and the issue was tabled.
Lufuno came back on this to say as long as material meets requirement, and material can be made available from the SETA that everyone can access. The discussion was left there.
1h:05mins
Talking about the differences in levels. Ben Van Nugteren at HPCSA asked for an indication of what the difference is between levels and used the example “what does handling shock on a basic level vs handling shock on an advanced level mean”. I first responded to this saying the focus group did not use this terminology, and I elaborate in saying the difference is coverage (of topics, and total contect) and NQF level.
Ben Van As elaborated on this and showed the different content is showing a summary of the three curricula showing how they differ. He used the tasks, responsibilities, and exit level outcomes defined in each of the three QCTO first aid curricula.
Daphney Qonde at HPCSA asked about the names of the three programs (basic, intermediate, advanced first aid). Ben Van As responded on this indicating that in OHS job titles or roles we use this terminology.
1h:05
Ben then opened the discussion to HPCSA about alternatives. Graham Pearson made comments about the historical understanding of these terms, and the desire to stay clear of the use of “levels”. He also noted the use of the word responder which the focus group was staying away from, but this came into the curriculum somewhere between QCTO and HWSETA as per my Spring 2023 article on this.
Lufuno said the names can be amended, but we cannot use levels in the name because the only levels QCTO uses are NQF levels. Ben Van Nugteren said that DoH (department of health) uses terms like “basic, intermediate, and advanced” so that can be taken up with them. He continued and said that the word “emergency” falls under the emergency care (sub) council of HPCSA and so that word must not be used in the title. Alastair Farish noted that we can remove the words “emergency” and “responder”. Ben Van As noted that the name must align with roles instead of disciplines (e.g. use first aider instead of first aid).
1H:35
Ben Van Nugteren asks about the credit and hours allocation to the program. Ben Van As respond explaining that 1 credit is roughly 10 notional hours, and then other sections are broken up into minutes. Ben Van Nugteren asked why the program is under 8 credits, and this was explained by Ben Van As. He elaborated to say the the QCTO first aid program is essentially more than 8 credits if taken as a cluster.
Lufuno came in on this and noted that the programs that fall under regulated training (e.g. QCTO first aid SP230801, 230802, 230803) can be under 8 credits. The non-regulatory programs must be 8 credits and above.
Ben Van Nugteren expressed concern that the curriculum has a container for the work experience. The work experience sections in the curricula are blank so is the articulation, but there is still concern about the curricula misleading learners into thinking there could be a job in this field. Alastair Farish noted that the goal of the curricula are there to meet the requirements of OHS act. I would like to note that while employment may not follow directly from completing basic, intermediate, of advanced first aid, it does increase employability. Also see my article about that here: HPCSA why did they discontinue AEA/BAA.
1H50
Ben Van Nugteren says nomenclature like “Basic Life Support” and “Advanced Life Support” is DoH and is not allowed. I would like to note that the curricula uses these terms in the context of opportunities for the learner for further study which is different. But it might not be in all cases, will need to check.
Ben Van Nugteren noted the one exit level outcome says that the first aider will provide basic emergency care to “alleviate discomfort and facilitate healing” and this overlaps with more advanced health care.
Ben Van Nugteren notes the equipment listed in the curricula (bandages etc) and says the exit level outcomes must indicate that this is the equipment that must be used with the intention of preventing the use of an IV line for example. He is saying the equipment listed in many ways defines the scope.
Ben Van Nugteren says 6 minutes is not enough to spend on basic human anatomy and physiology. Ben Van As notes that three hours is allocated to this (in the basic first aid curriculum).
2H
Ben Van Nugteren asks about “scope of work” and if that misleads learners into thinking this is about work, but the topic is about scope of work or scope of practice, meaning the work the first aider does (the act of doing something as opposed to a job). Removing this term will have the opposite effect. Lufuno notes that the scope of work must refer back to the curricula tasks as a first aider.
Ben Van Nugteren asks about the treatment of diabetes in basic first aid. It was discussed regarding to what degree they are treated. The use of a monitor was not given in the basic curriculum, but is introduced in later curricula.
Ben Van Nugteren asks about an intermediate first aider training a basic first aider and whether or not that is appropriate. Graham Pearson responds that this is from historic practices of first aid training. Lufuno notes that the advanced first aid requirement can be used across the board. Kathy and Graham Pearson say this will close down too many training providers as most of them do not have this.
I noted that the AEA/BAA courses are no longer running making this even less accessible.
This then came back to this: The SP230801 and SP230802 learner must be trained by a minimum of aSP230803 trainer, and the SP230803 trainer must be trained by a minimum of a NQF Level 5 trainer in emergency care, meaning an HPCSA registered AEA/BAA/paramedic or SANC registered professional.
2H58
Ben Van Nugteren requests oxygen treatment is removed from any of the curricula. It only appears in the advanced course. He continues to say that it is a clinical decision that must be made in response to an indication.
Kathy Bodmer responds to this. She notes that there is a variety of industries that use the program, including diving and mining sectors where oxygen is essential and required and / or needed. The fire department was also mentioned. The use is specific to the patient and industry, but these industries are reliant on having QCTO advanced first aid SP230803 and if you remove oxygen from that curriculum their industry requirement for that training is affected.
Dr. Lloyd Christopher expressed that oxygen treatment is about more than just treating the patient, there are various mask types and related pieces of equipment.
Ben Van Nugteren reflects on Kathy’s statement and acknowledges that there are times when oxygen is clearly indicated, and as such there might be a middle ground. E.g. diving and mining. He is saying that the indication must be clear though.
Ben Van As summarises this discussion as oxygen being critical and utilised where it is needed. It can be removed from the program, or it can be left in but with a specific statement about when it is to be used.
Kathy Bodmer responds that if we take it out of the curriculum we leave a gap and then we do not know if learners who did the advanced course actually did oxygen treatment or not.
Ben Van Nugteren says he is less concerned about regulation requirements he is more concerned about the patient and the clinical perspective. And that only patients who need it will get oxygen regardless of if it’s available or not.
Ben Van As summarises that the oxygen should be administered only when needed and this needs to be clearly spelled out.
3H15
Ben Van Nugteren raises the issue of the bag valve mask and says he believes it should only be used by those with clinical training. Discussion continues around this with Simpiwe Sobuwa, Ben Van Nugteren, Kathy Bodmer, Daphney Qonde, Alastair Farish, and others in the group. It is similar to the discussion around the oxygen, except that HPCSA says the bag valve mask carries specific risk of harm (serious harm).
Towards the end of the conversation the decision is leaning toward removing the bag valve mask from the curricula.
There is some resistance and disappointment from Graham Pearson and Kathy Bodmer about removing bag valve mask because of its use for e.g. hypoxic patients treated by the fire department, but is seems they are conceding to the council’s decision to remove it.
3H30
Ben Van As is talking about applying the changes. He is recapping on the meeting and items discussed.
Items that had major discussion and seem to be marked for definite and major change:
Items that had discussion and may or may not result in change:
Items regarding scope
Next point of action. A report will be made and meetings set to action changes. QCTO / HWSETA will make consultation with DoH about use of words including : basic, advanced, intermediate, advanced life support, basic life support etc.
4H
Yes!
Lufuno says that those who are accredited will be given time to apply for re-accreditation against the changed program. And time will be allowed for the old program to be phased out.
This was met with quite a lot of resistance from Kathy, Graham, Alastair, and myself.
Champa Gopal (HWSETA) noted that perhaps a meeting can be had with SDP’s through the SETA to make it so the amendments can be applied without re-accreditation.
Lufuno responds saying that if the titles change, then the programs all get a new skills program ID’s, and they all have to be re-applied for. He says that if Champa can speak to accreditation (probably meaning a QCTO department) it will not change this.
There is more resistance, and HPCSA says that this discusion does not concern them, they have a mandate and that mandate is to remove the word “emergency” from the program titles.
Note: If the titles did not change, the programs would not change.
I ask what the teach out period will be, and if QCTO plans to honour their 5 year commitment they give each SDP in the form of their accreditation letter. The QCTO and HWSETA do not say they will allow a 2 – 5 year teach out period. They say that when the replaced programs are established, SDP’s will be given time to apply but they will not say how long that time will be. I asked again if it will be 2 – 5 years, Champa responds and says no, it will be a teach out period (and that is all the info we could get).
