Mentor & Trainer Performance Review Policy
ASF Surveyor Training Programme — Continuing Performance Standards and Improvement Framework
Aligned with ISQua EEA STP 4th Edition (2021) Criterion 2.4
ISQua EEA STP Criterion Reference
2.4 Exact criterion text (ISQua EEA STP 4th Ed., 2021): “The organisation has a process for monitoring and reviewing trainer and mentor performance.”
MET ASF operates a structured annual performance review cycle for all trainers and mentors, supplemented by real-time feedback mechanisms and an improvement support pathway. The process is documented, applied consistently, and evidence is retained in the ASF Quality Management System.
Performance Review Framework
The performance review framework for ASF trainers and mentors draws on validated adult education quality assurance models, specifically the UK Ofsted Education Inspection Framework (2023) domain structure, adapted for a healthcare accreditation training context, and the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model’s focus on continuous improvement through evidence-based self-assessment.
Performance Domains Assessed
| Domain | Description | Primary Data Source | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Quality of Training/Mentoring | Clarity of explanations, use of evidence-based content, alignment with learning outcomes, management of group dynamics | Trainee satisfaction surveys; teaching observation scores | 35% |
| 2. Trainee Outcomes | Pass rates in assessments linked to the trainer/mentor’s cohort; OSCEs scores; competency achievement against benchmarks | Assessment database; LMS grade export | 30% |
| 3. Professional Conduct | Adherence to Code of Conduct; conflicts of interest management; punctuality and reliability; response to feedback | Programme Director observation; Ethics Officer report; self-assessment | 20% |
| 4. Continuing Professional Development | Achievement of minimum 15 CPD hours/year; relevance of CPD to programme delivery; evidence of applying new learning | Annual CPD log submitted to HR by 31 January | 15% |
Review Process — Step by Step
Annual Review Cycle
- Self-assessment (February): Each trainer/mentor completes a structured self-assessment form covering all 4 domains; evidence attachments submitted (CPD log, sample materials, reflection notes)
- Data collation (March): Programme Director collates trainee satisfaction survey results, assessment outcome data, and teaching observation records for the preceding 12 months
- Review meeting (April): 1-hour meeting between trainer/mentor and Programme Director; structured discussion against each domain; overall performance rating agreed
- Development plan (April–May): Joint development plan agreed, including CPD targets, development activities, and any support needed; plan lodged in ASF QMS
- Mid-year check-in (October): 30-minute progress review against development plan; recorded in QMS; triggers early support if development plan is off-track
Performance Ratings Scale
| Rating | Description | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Outstanding (5) | Consistently exceeds all performance standards; evidence of innovation and contribution to programme improvement | Recognition; shared as good practice; invited to contribute to programme development |
| Good (4) | Meets all performance standards; evidence of continuous improvement; minor areas for development identified | Standard development plan; eligible for lead trainer or senior mentor role |
| Requires improvement (3) | Meets most standards but has 1–2 areas of significant concern; trainee outcomes or satisfaction below threshold in one domain | Enhanced development plan with specific measurable targets; 6-month review; additional observation |
| Inadequate (2) | Fails to meet minimum standards in 2 or more domains; significant impact on trainee outcomes or programme quality | Formal performance improvement plan (PIP); 3-month intensive support; temporary supervision of delivery; PIP failure → removal from programme |
| Critical concern (1) | Serious breach of professional standards; significant harm or risk to trainees or accreditation integrity | Immediate suspension from delivery pending investigation; formal disciplinary process under ASF HR policy |
Real-Time Feedback Mechanisms
Trainee Satisfaction Surveys
All trainees complete a validated satisfaction survey immediately after each training module. The survey uses a 5-point Likert scale across 10 items covering: content quality; delivery effectiveness; learning environment; practical relevance; and overall satisfaction. Survey data is aggregated per trainer/module and reported to the Programme Director monthly. Threshold: mean score <3.5 on any item triggers an immediate informal discussion with the trainer within 5 working days.
Teaching Observation
All trainers are observed formally at least once per year by the Programme Director or a designated senior trainer using the ASF Teaching Observation Framework. New trainers are observed in their first cohort and once more in the following 12 months. Observation reports are shared with the trainer within 5 working days and retained in the QMS.
References & Regulatory Basis
UK Ofsted Education Inspection Framework (2023) — Quality of Education domain structure adapted for healthcare accreditation training context. gov.uk/ofsted
European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Model (2020) — Evidence-based self-assessment and continuous improvement framework. efqm.org
Kirkpatrick, D.L. & Kirkpatrick, J.D. (2006) — Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. — The four-level evaluation model (reaction, learning, behaviour, results) underpins ASF’s trainer performance assessment domains.
Loi n°2018-771 du 5 septembre 2018 — Art. L.6315-1 Code du travail: entretien professionnel obligatoire tous les 2 ans (annual performance conversation for training staff).