082 776 8560

QCTO first aid SP230801, 230802, 230803 name change matter, update

In April 2024 HPCSA sent a letter to QCTO about the three first aid skills programs. In the six months that have passed since then many new providers have applied for and become QCTO accredited for first aid, and started training. They are still training without issue and probably will be for some time. There has been some development on this matter this week and last week. The article explains.

I called Sifiso Monza about this on 2nd October 2024 to find out if these programs are under review and will have their names and ID’s changed. QCTO and HWSETA met about it on Friday 27th September (just them I think). I was looking for the outcome of that meeting.

This is all about a proposed change to the title of the three QCTO first aid skills programs. It is relevant because changing the titles means changing the IDs, and changing the IDs on these skills programs will mean that training providers will need to move to the newer programs at some point.

It is likely, but not yet certain these titles and IDs will change. QCTO have said some kind of transitional mechanism concession is possible, but that’s still admin.

I spoke with Sifiso Mkhonza at QCTO whose title is “Director: Occupational Qualifications Design”. We spoke for about 10.5 minutes.

Confirming what we discussed on the phone

I emailed Sifiso after our phone discussion to confirm I correctly understood what he was saying, and he responded to confirm on these points:

  1. HWSETA has / will be submitting an application to formally review these three first aid skills programs SP230801, 230802, 230803.
  2. In the meeting between QCTO and HWSETA on the 27th September 2024 it was agreed that this would happen ahead / before the normal review cycle of the curricula (i.e. it will happen earlier than in 3 – 4 years’ time).
  3. The review process will include and involve stakeholders (including those who were on the original panel who effectively created these curricula, and including Lime Green).
  4. The nature of the review – that will include stakeholders – will determine if the programs will get new IDs and names. That is not certain yet (but very likely?).
  5. The outcome of the process above will determine if the review results in the programs getting new names and therefore new ID’s and the need for some kind of transition (but again, it is likely).
  6. If there are significant changes, there will be a mechanism to support those already accredited to transition from the old to the new, QCTO will not make this an onerous process.
  7. The mechanism to transition existing providers will be determined by David Thaga and the accreditation department and I should speak to them about that.

As a follow up I also emailed David Thaga, will see if he responds.

Notes on this

QCTO have said “Those already accredited or applying will remain valid”.

The wheels turn slowly. HPCSA sent QCTO a letter in April requesting discussion on this. We are already into October and so far there has been talk, but in six months we are only at the stage where HWSETA has / will now begin to submit an application to QCTO to consider a review via a formalised process.  

The QCTO review process includes mandatory consultation with the stakeholders, and I can tell you that stakeholders who represent SDPs mostly want the titles left alone (can elaborate, but that is a fair statement).

The review process itself takes ages. They have to book meetings, get everyone there, follow up after, wait for drafts, send out drafts, read drafts, meet again etc. I have been involved in the development process on various levels for 22 QCTO skills programs so far, and can tell you that it takes a lot of time to collaborate and finish the product. And the more people involved, the longer it takes.

It remains to be seen what kind of “non onerous transitional arrangements” and concessions will be made if this all comes to a head but at least there is acknowledgement that such a concession is necessary.

Other notes on this

The decision to change the programs in a way that could or would cause re-application to happen is based on the HPCSA’s request that QCTO remove words in the titles of these programs that HPCSA don’t want other organisation’s programs to use; for example, the word “emergency”. That is what this whole debacle is about.

I believe this is overreach and not a good enough reason to go through all this effort. Words like “emergency” and “basic” are neutrally descriptive of the programs.

I believe any fair objective discussion about this will confirm banning of such words in the titles as overreach by HPCSA. I also believe if this was a legal issue about the names of first aid training programs, HPCSA’s request to sort of “own” individual words like “emergency” used separately is outlandish and could not even be taken seriously. I honestly think HPCSA are even starting to realise this.

Content vs titles: NB: It is within HPCSA’s mandate to comment on actual curricula content (e.g. oxygen use). That does fit their mandate. That is a separate issue from the issue of changing the program titles names. It is the proposed name changes that could cause re-application, not minor content changes though, hence this whole debacle. I must add though, that major content changes will have the same effect as title changes. But so far that is not what was proposed by HPCSA. There are some, but minor changes proposed.

As an aside, Intra on their website incorrectly reports that this is all about HPCSA raising general safety regulations section 3 issues. That is incorrect. The content issues raised by HPCSA are described in previous articles on this website. I even gave rough minutes of the meetings I attended making that info public. HPCSA raised flags on things like oxygen use, bag valve mask, and the and then there’s the issue that this article is about; words in titles.

Stakeholders who represent SDPs need to be given due consideration in a neutral, open, moderated discussion about the titles issue HPCSA has raised. So far that has NOT happened with the focus group that developed these curricula despite great efforts to try to get it to happen.

Mature debate is lacking: During the development of these three first aid curricula there was plenty of healthy debate between members of the focus group. That was handled maturely, with respect for each other, and with some give and take. The same needs to apply to this process but has, on this specific issue, been lacking on the HPCSA proposed titles changes.

<< Back to articles