Briefing for Decision-Makers
One page for the manager or commissioner deciding whether to release staff for this programme
For the manager, education lead or commissioner deciding whether to support a cohort. If you’re the person trying to get the programme started, see Getting Traction.
The ask: release 8–12 staff for three 90-minute sessions, one week apart, and one facilitator for about 8–10 hours. Agree the time with line managers before invitations go out, and name someone to send the 30- and 90-day checks. The materials are free under CC BY 4.0. The time is not.
Overview: what it is
A short CPD programme for anyone in health and care who teaches, or would like to. No teaching experience is needed. It starts from one question: what do we need people to do differently, and how will our teaching make that happen?
Each participant brings one session they teach, or would like to teach, and rebuilds it over three weeks on a six-box design canvas. The canvas is the same six questions as Before You Plan a Teaching Day.
| Session | Participants |
|---|---|
| 1. Death by PowerPoint? | Redesign their own slides, using cognitive load and dual coding |
| 2. Active Beats Passive | Make ten minutes of their session active, using retrieval, spacing and interleaving |
| 3. Did It Land? | Write observable outcomes, decide what evidence would show them, and plan the follow-up |
Each person leaves with a completed canvas and a named colleague (often their manager) who will hold them to it at 30 days, and give the time and support it needs.
What participants will be able to do
These are the programme’s suggested outcomes: what the content, as designed, is built to deliver. By the end of the three sessions, participants will be able to:
- Redesign a slide from their own teaching so it’s clear and easy to read from the back of the room.
- Make ten minutes of their session active, using a technique or tool that suits where they teach.
- Say what they want learners to be able to do by the end of their session, in a way they could watch or check, and work out how they’ll check it.
- Show how their session links up: the change they want → what learners do → how they’ll check it → what they’d see change.
- Plan what happens after their session: what they’ll look at again after 30, 60 and 90 days, who will keep them on track, and what help they need from that person.
They are written for this content, not for your learners. Before you commit, check them against the people who will be in the room: who they are, what they need, and what they’d want from three weeks. If the fit is poor, change the outcomes and the examples, or choose a different programme. The licence lets you adapt freely; tailoring the programme to a particular group is work on top of the free materials. Programme Setup has a row for it.
Academic credit
Academic credit is possible, but it is not built in, and it depends on the setup. The programme can sit inside a work-based learning module at a higher education institution. In that model, participants choose their own learning outcomes (the suggested ones are a starting point), write a reflection, and show how their practice has changed. The institution sets the level, assessment and fees.
Nothing here is accredited. If credit matters to you, raise it with the institution before the first invitation goes out, not after Session 3.
What it costs
| Item | Per cohort of 10 |
|---|---|
| Participant time | 4.5 hours each in sessions (45 staff hours), plus up to an hour each on the between-session tasks |
| Facilitator time | About 8–10 hours: preparation, delivery, follow-up. More on a first run |
| Room | A screen, a whiteboard, chairs that move |
| Software | Free tiers of Mentimeter and Kahoot, each with a low-tech fallback |
| Licence | None |
Judge it as value for time. The question is whether those hours buy more change than the same hours spent on a typical teaching day.
What to expect, and what not to
- Each participant redesigns one real session and plans how to check it worked.
- Participants are asked at 30 and 90 days what they changed, what happened and what got in the way. The Evaluation Toolkit has the instruments.
- Those answers are mostly self-report. Early cohorts are often volunteers and enthusiasts, so results may flatter the programme.
- No claim is made about patient or service outcomes. Too much else changes at the same time.
- The programme is new. It was redesigned after a seven-person pilot in 2026 and has no follow-up data yet.
Why it fits current expectations
- NHS England’s Educator Workforce Strategy says: “Without educators, we do not have a future workforce.” It cites GMC survey data: 52% of trainers at moderate or high risk of burnout, and 55% unable to use all their allocated training time. When development time is this scarce, it has to change practice.
- The GMC (R4.1), NMC (SSSA 5.1) and HCPC (SETs 3.11 and 5.7) expect educators and practice supervisors to be trained and supported in their role. This programme can contribute to that. It does not meet those standards on its own.
- NHS England’s Nursing and Midwifery Educator Framework says: “Educators are expected to employ andragogy and pedagogy relevant to context.”
Sources
- NHS England (2023). Educator workforce strategy, citing GMC National Training Survey 2022.
- General Medical Council (2015). Promoting excellence: standards for medical education and training, R4.1.
- Nursing and Midwifery Council (2018, republished 2023). Standards for student supervision and assessment, 3.5 and 5.1.
- Health and Care Professions Council (2017). Standards of education and training, 3.11 and 5.7. Revised standards take effect in 2027.
- NHS England (2026). Nursing and midwifery educator framework.