How worried are people about the issue of PRTL? Often when I speak to social workers they are unsure exactly what is meant by PRTL and this could be down to a lack of clarity from the GSCC. I think it is good to have some sort of CPD to raise standards in a profession but think a little more guidance may well have been needed from the outset.

Apparently PRTL could be changing over the next year depending on how people respond to the GSCC's consultation. I reckon everyone should get involved and make their thoughts known do the process improves.

Post-Registration Training & Learning is probably the last thing on their over-worked minds!  Haven't social workers already got enough on their plates?

Got to keep learning Caroline - otherwise your practice ends up being stuck in the past . There's always new developments to keep in touch with

And you can always log your PRTL hours at http://www.communitycare.co.uk/StaticPages/PRTL/90hours.htm tokeep track of all the activities you have completed.

I must be one of the few people who think that 90 hours is a very little post reg training over three years! I keep hearing people moan about it but it's so easy to lose track of developments and changes in practice. I only wish my boss was willing to let me go to the odd conference.

I agree Snorky, it's not that much, particularly over three years. It is really important to stay current with the latest policies and changing in working practices.

90 hours over three years is not that much. I get the impression that sometimes people don't realise that what they are doing, such as reading Community Care, can count as part of their PRTL.

 I think we could end up with a problem when re-registration comes as I reckon there must be quite a few social workers who haven't done their 90 hours

Well we found in a recent poll on www.communitycare.co.uk that one fifth of social workers had only completed 0-19 hours with the deadline fast approaching.

By the time my re-registration came up in October I found I'd easily completed 90 hours - a few in-house training days, reading Community Care, BASW's PSW, attending ComCare Live and the occasional BASW meeting quickly added up, and that's without taking into account any new skills training, books I'd read, researching issues related to specific cases, or the work put into completing the PQSW.  I didn't record any but discussions in team meetings and supervision can also be valid learning opportunities.  I suspect that for many people the difficulty in identifying 90 hours of learning is that they see it as just part of the job and not specifically a learning activity.

As suggested in the opening post the GSCC's original woolly explanations of what could and could not count towards PRTL did not help, and rather than not having completed 90 hours learning I think the problem will be that social workers won't have a full record of the actual learning they have achieved in order to present it with their re-registration.  It's a change of mindset that's needed to recognise self development and learning.  An alternative way to keep track is to have a folder in your desk in which you can shove any evidence you might have that will remind you of things you did that can count towards PRTL (team meeting minutes if available, a brief note to remind you of all the research you did in working with a particular case, any certificates you might have got from courses, or attendance lists from events you attended, the title of a book you bought/borrowed and read, gaining authorisation to practice adult or child protection).

 Sorry - got a bit long winded there.

Hi Aitch,

I reckon you are right and that it's a change of mindset which is required. I have been out to visit quite a few adults and children's services teams lately and many people say they have hardly completed any of their 90 hours and then real off a list of things they have done all of which would count in my mind. It seems people are often so busy doing things that the recording parts goes out of the window and the opportunity for it to count towards PRTL is gone.

It looks like BASW is after wholesale reform of PRTL on the basis of its submission to the GSCC's current policy review, which says PRTL fails to "address competence explicitly", meaning it lacks credibility.

It also wants all social workers to be completing a specialist PQ award within six years of qualifying. Do people want to see more explicit learning requirements, including qualifications as well as doing a set number of hours every three years?

Well done BASW and I commend Bridget Robb's comments on their behalf.

If social work registration is to have any credibility it must demonstrate that it takes professional practice and standards seriously. It led the way in calling for a General Social Work Council but  the end result was far from BASW's original ideals and aspirations.

Firstly then, we need ALL QUALIFIED SOCIAL WORKERS to be registered (currently only those called 'social worker' need to be (although many employers will insist of registration for certain Posts) - there are significant numbers who are not registered despite professionally managing and having the rights to overrule social workers (indeed not all Directors are even social work qualified). Rodney Brooke, Chair of the GSCC, knows of the weaknesses in the current system but seems unprepared to be at all critical. How can he possibly seek to justify this 'mix and match' of qualified social workers not all requiring to be formally registered?

Secondly, on-going Professional Development requires quantifiable, assessable and outcome-based evidence which have degrees of 'independent' assessment. Currently re-registration is achieveable in almost the total absence of anything which is directly work-related. You just, for instance, need to go on a number of training courses / Conferences to satisfy the GSCC.

Thirdly, is the profession so healthy that to date the GSCC has only had to refer 1 social worker to the Commission for Social Care Inspection? It seems that the GSCC is relatively toothless when it comes to looking at the 'wider' elements of Social Care so it conveniently says that it is not its remit! Brooke laughingly states that "We have the same powers in relation to social workers as the General Medical Council has in relation to doctors. The GMC does not try to undertake the role of the Healthcare Commission. Neither should the GSCC duplicate the functions of the CSCI." Does he really believe that there is the slightest comparison between the 2 professions? How many unqualified / unregistered medical doctors does he know about? (answers on the back of a postage stamp please!!!).

Yes, it is right that the whole issue of registration should be urgently revisited and that perhaps the current system should be 'put on ice' pending a thorough review following wide consultation with other related professions as well.