Executive summary

On 25 February 2025 face to face meetings were held with East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust (ENH) residents and trainers in anaesthetics, medicine, paediatrics and surgery to review the clinical learning environment following concerns highlighted by the 2024 General Medical Council (GMC) National Training Survey (NTS) and supported by internal programme intelligence. The review meeting was conducted in accordance with the NHS England Educational Quality Framework Domains and Standards for Quality Reviews.

This report has been written in a manner to preserve the anonymity of residents and includes commendations for areas of good practice as well as educational requirements that need to be addressed via an improvement plan. NHS England Workforce, Training, and Education (WT&E) will work with the trust to agree measurable actions and timelines to address the educational requirements. 

The meetings demonstrated areas of good practice which include:

• The trust is engaged with NHS England WT&E education quality processes, and all meetings were well organised and well attended.
• Across departments, trainers were largely aware of the concerns highlighted to us by residents suggesting they are actively seeking feedback from residents. In many instances, departments had already initiated measures to address highlighted concerns, though many were in the planning stages and had not commenced.
• Most residents across programmes (anaesthetics, medicine, paediatrics and surgery) described the trust and their department’s culture as friendly, with most consultants (and registrars) felt to be supportive, approachable and happy to teach.
• Foundation, core, and GP medicine residents felt seniors take time to discuss interesting cases and provide teaching. Both higher and more junior medicine residents felt consultants are supportive and they receive good exposure to a wide variety of cases with opportunities to undertake practical procedures. Similar feedback was provided by anaesthetic, paediatric and surgery residents.
• The paediatrics department was noted to promote staff wellbeing and celebrate positive achievements with awards to acknowledge good work, as well as organising social events to support morale and team building.
• Anaesthetic residents reported the department has clear escalation processes, with patient safety prioritised, and residents supported to escalate any concerns. Anaesthetic residents also felt supported to exception report, and did not have concerns about the need to work overtime.
• Foundation, and GP paediatric residents, and most anaesthetic and surgery residents, praised their rotas and rota coordinators, and felt the rota was supportive.
• Most residents across programmes would recommend their placement as a training site due to the experiences they receive, and the feeling that people in the trust are friendly. Some residents felt the trust is improving and felt they have more opportunities for feedback than previously.

Feedback from the meetings identified a potential trainee/patient safety risk which required an immediate 5-day response:

• Medical registrars residents on long shifts reported they sometimes need to leave the premises of the hospital while on shift and holding the cardiac arrest bleep, in order to walk to a parking lot at a garden centre offsite in order to move their car back to the hospital before the garden centre locks the gate at 6pm. Education Quality (WT&E) were told this was required as there is insufficient parking available onsite when residents begin their shifts (RQ1).

The trust provided a response to the immediate concern and reported they had reviewed parking arrangements and on call, long day registrars will now be able to park on level 10 of the multistorey car park, which is onsite and will mean there is no need to move their car during their shift. NHS England WT&E accepted this response.

The meetings feedback also demonstrated other challenges in the clinical learning environment including:

• Anaesthetic residents reported some ICU trainers do not appear to value residents or their feedback, ICU residents also described a culture of blame and undermining with some trainers openly discussing patients and residents in a manner that was felt to be unprofessional, though this was felt to be more related to individuals rather than the department culture.
• Workload and staffing were cited as significant challenges by both groups of medicine residents and particularly for foundation, GP and core residents, with reports they are unable to take breaks and are regularly expected to work late. Workload was also reported to impact residents’ ability to take annual leave, and attend training, and the unit was noted to have significantly high rates of sick leave.
• Staffing was also cited as a challenge for surgery residents, who reported staffing impacts training opportunities with residents often expected to fill rota gaps, which may reduce learning time; these challenges were most significantly felt in general surgery.
• IT systems were reported to be challenging by all groups and highlighted as potentially high risk by anaesthetic and medicine residents. Anaesthetic residents raised concerns about dual prescribing in ICU and the Emergency Department (ED) due to two systems, one paper based, and one electronic system, which was felt to potentially compromise patient safety. Medicine residents reported the Lorenzo drugs management IT system crashes regularly, and when it crashes drug charts may be inaccessible. Some patients were reported to have received double doses of medication due to this system crashing and inconsistent mitigation to the problem.
• Paediatric, medicine and surgery residents reported they felt discouraged from exception reporting, despite regular out of hours working. It was felt if they exception reported they would be viewed negatively, and that out of hours working is normalised within the department(s).
• The trust induction process was reported to be poor by many residents due to challenges with the timely receipt of access cards, parking permits, and IT logins, and some residents reporting they had not received rotas with sufficient advance notice. Some residents in anaesthetic ICU and medicine subspecialties (respiratory and gastroenterology) felt induction was not sufficient to prepare them for their first shifts. 

Review overview

Background to the review

The review meeting was implemented following concerns regarding the clinical learning environment highlighted via the 2024 General Medical Council (GMC) National Training Survey (NTS) results for anaesthetics, medicine, paediatrics and surgery and supported by internal programme intelligence. The review meeting has been conducted in accordance with the NHS England Educational Quality Framework Domains and Standards for Quality Reviews.

Who we met with

Residents:

• Anaesthetic Residents
  • 7 core
  • 8 higher
• Medicine Residents
  • 31 Foundation, core and GP residents, from across medicine specialties
  • 13 Higher residents from across medicine specialties
• Paediatrics Residents
  • 8 Foundation, core and GP residents, from both Paediatrics and Neonates
  • 12 Higher residents, from both Paediatrics and Neonates including IMGs
• Surgery Residents
  • 10 Foundation, core and GP residents, from across surgery specialties
  • 7 Higher residents, from across surgery specialties

Educators:

• Anaesthetics – 10 trainers
• Medicine – 14 trainers from across medicine specialties
• Paediatrics – 15 trainers from both Paediatrics and Neonates, as well as Foundation training programme director, and Emergency Medicine Paediatrics
• Surgery – 7 trainers from across surgical specialties

Education team

• Medical Director
• Director of Medical Education
• Medical Education Manager
• Head of Children’s services
• College Tutor Paediatrics
• College Tutor Anaesthetics

Review Panel

Anaesthetic meetings:

• Education Quality Review Lead, Tracy Wray, Head of Education Quality
• NHS England Education Quality Representative(s), Ryan Collins, Education Quality Intelligence Analyst and Victoria Tarus, Education Quality Administrator
• Specialty Expert, Dr Emily Simpson, Deputy Head of School of Anaesthetics

Medicine Meetings:

• Education Quality Review Lead, Marjorie Casey, Education Quality Manager 
• NHS England Education Quality Representative(s), Agnes Donoughue, Education Quality Coordinator
• Specialty Expert, Dr James Edwards, Postgraduate Medicine Head of School, and Dr Jonathan Rouse, GP Associate Postgraduate Dean for Quality and Assessment

 Paediatric meetings:

• Education Quality Review Lead, Marjorie Casey, Education Quality Manager 
• NHS England Education Quality Representative, Agnes Donoughue, Education Quality Coordinator 
• Specialty Experts, Dr Vasanta Nanduri, Paediatric Head of School and Dr Helen Bailie, Paediatric Quality Training Programme Director, Dr Hasanthi, Deputy Foundation School Director, and Dr Jonathan Rouse, GP Associate Postgraduate Dean for Quality and Assessment

Surgery meetings:

• Education Quality Review Lead, Tracy Wray, Head of Education Quality
• NHS England Education Quality Representative(s), Ryan Collins, Education Quality Intelligence Analyst and Victoria Tarus, Education Quality Administrator
• Specialty Expert, Ms Claire Edwards, Head of School of Surgery and Dr Hasanthi, Deputy Foundation School Director   

Review findings

Learning environment and culture

Most residents across programmes (anaesthetics, medicine, paediatrics and surgery) described the trust and their department’s culture as friendly, with most consultants (and registrars) felt to be supportive, approachable, and happy to teach. Anaesthetics residents felt the department is friendly and most staff are supportive, with some exceptions and the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) highlighted as the most culturally challenging area, though this was felt to be related more to individuals than the department culture. Anaesthetic residents reported some ICU trainers do not seem to value residents or their feedback, ICU residents also described a culture of blame and undermining, with some trainers openly discussing patients and residents in a manner that was felt to be unprofessional (RQ2).

Paediatric residents felt both paediatric and neonatal consultants and senior residents are supportive, and they receive good and varied exposure to cases across clinics, wards and neonates. Locally Employed Doctors (LEDs) also reported feeling well supported, with good opportunities to develop and friendly colleagues. The paediatrics department was noted to promote staff wellbeing and celebrate positive achievements with awards to acknowledge good work, as well as organising social events to support morale and team building. Residents reported trainers support them to take coffee breaks and have lunch, which they felt was kind and supportive.

Both groups of paediatrics residents were largely positive about the culture, though it was noted by higher residents that in the previous year there had been issues in A&E, with reports of nurses undermining registrar decisions, particularly on night shifts. Trainers addressed this issue, and reported trainees are encouraged to speak up about concerns, with work undertaken to resolve the issues between the medical and nursing teams, and nurses now sitting in on handover meetings which supports building teamworking. Civility sessions were arranged for the multiprofessional teams, and it is felt the relationship has improved. Both residents and trainers noted that the interface between neonates and midwifery can be challenging, and this has been escalated to the department’s senior management for support with next steps (RC1).  

Medicine trainees felt the department is largely supportive with good multiprofessional working. Foundation, core and GP residents felt seniors take the time to discuss interesting cases and provide teaching. Both groups of medicine residents felt consultants are supportive and friendly and they receive good exposure to wide ranges of cases with opportunities to undertake practical procedures. However, workload was cited as a significant challenge by both groups of medicine residents and particularly for foundation, core and GP residents with a perception that gaps in the rota are not being filled, and foundation, core and GP residents are unable to take breaks and regularly miss meals due to work pressures. Residents did not feel bullied or undermined but did feel pressured with a belief that seniors expect them to forgo breaks and work late (they felt this was the department culture). (RQ3).

Surgery residents were largely positive about the department’s culture with many reporting there are good team dynamics, and they felt comfortable to ask questions, discuss cases, and included in decision making. Most surgery residents reported feeling valued and respected within their teams, with consultants in plastic surgery and colorectal surgery highlighted as particularly supportive. Workload was cited as a challenge in some areas, including general surgery, which can impact morale with residents reporting they sometimes felt under-supported for their level of experience. Residents report strong peer support helps to counterbalance the occasional negative experience. Higher surgery residents reported they have occasionally encountered racist and misogynist comments from patients, but felt staff support each other when there is discrimination, though some residents were uncomfortable escalating incidents when they’ve occurred (RC2).

Facilities across the hospital were reported to be challenging by all groups, with residents reporting significant challenges with IT systems, which were highlighted as potentially dangerous by anaesthetic and medicine residents, with anaesthetics particularly affected as they work across multiple areas.  IT systems were reported to be complicated with multiple systems and multiple logins, and systems that regularly crash, with individual departments developing mitigations to manage the crashes. In some instances, necessary documentation is inaccessible within the required timeframes due to system crashes. Anaesthetic residents have raised concerns around dual prescribing in ICU and ED due to two systems, one paper based, and one via the electronic system, which was felt to potentially compromise patient safety (RQ4). The Lorenzo IT system for drugs management was reported to crash regularly, and if it crashes drug charts may be inaccessible. Some patients were reported to have received double doses of medication due to this system crashing and no consistent mitigation for the problem (RQ4). Medicine GP residents reported they did not always receive all the required logins (for example radiology) and relied on sharing other colleagues’ log-in details, which was felt to be risky in terms of information governance. Residents across programmes reported issues with newer Smartcards not being compatible with some IT systems and challenges with accessing discharge summaries or being able to prescribe. The Trust is aware of the IT issues and holds this on the trust risk-register with plans to bring in a new Electronic Patient Record system in the next 6-12 months.

Office and rest facilities were also cited as challenging by all training groups with office spaces reported to be small with limited access, and rest facilities insufficient with challenges booking rest facilities onsite. Many groups reported utilising unoccupied clinic rooms or patient beds to lie down, but these are not private or reliably available (RC3). Office facilities in medicine were reported to be particularly challenging with an example provided of the Medical Acute Take office being moved to a corridor next to the reception desk. This was highlighted as a problem as confidential patient conversations and handovers are now happening in a public space in view of other patients and their visitors (RC4).

Parking was highlighted as a challenge by many residents across groups, with many indicating it took a long time to obtain parking permits, and even with a permit there is not sufficient parking on site. Residents noted it is common to park in a visitor space (which is effectively paying twice for parking) or to park offsite. Medical residents highlighted a patient/trainee safety concern reporting they sometimes need to leave the premises of the hospital, while on shift and holding the cardiac arrest bleep, in order to walk to a parking lot at a garden centre offsite in order to move their car back to the hospital before the garden centre locks the gate at 6pm. This was shared as an immediate concern following the meetings and the trust provided appropriate mitigations to enable on call, long day registrars to park onsite (RQ1).

Anaesthetic residents and trainers highlighted access to blood fridges as challenging with a desire for a more rapid electronic blood issue system. They reported the only accessible blood fridge is in the vascular hub, with no blood fridges in some high-risk areas including obstetrics and the treatment centre, though it was clarified the treatment centre has a blood fridge, but it has not been fully set up yet. Anaesthetic residents also noted ICU stock seems disorganised, with occasional lack of equipment including cannulas (RC5).

Educational governance and commitment to quality

Anaesthetic residents reported the department has clear escalation processes, with patient safety prioritised, and residents aware of how to escalate concerns. Anaesthetic residents felt supported to exception report, but did not have concerns about the need to work overtime.  Foundation and GP residents in paediatrics also reported they are encouraged to exception report and aware of how to do this, however higher paediatric residents felt they are discouraged from exception reporting with many higher residents reporting they did not have a log-in to exception report and would not know how. Some paediatric registrars reported they do exception report, and noted they work late due to the high workload, and a desire to be supportive to colleagues (RQ5).

Foundation, Core and GP medicine residents reported exception reporting is difficult with many GP trainees noting they were not allocated a clinical supervisor (CS) until relatively late in their placement, which was challenging as placement planning is not happening, and restricted them from exception reporting as the report needs to be signed off by a CS. Other medicine residents reported their supervisors find the IT process for signing off exception reports challenging and as a result this discourages them from submitting. Many foundation, core and GP medicine residents reported initially staying late as they were new to the job, and it took them longer to complete tasks, but even after they developed more experience they still stay late (and do not exception report), as otherwise work accumulates to the following day(s) (RQ3, 5). Higher medicine residents also reported that they do not exception report, with many indicating they did not know how. Many residents felt working out of hours is normalised, exception reporting is not part of the culture, and felt submissions would be seen as a negative reflection on the resident who exception reports (RQ5).

Some surgery residents reported they were aware of the escalation processes and had utilised exception reporting to highlight rota gaps and service pressures, but many other surgery residents felt out of hours working is normalised in the department, with exception reporting discouraged (RQ5).  

Developing and supporting learners

The trust induction process was reported by many across programmes to be poor due to challenges with access cards, parking permits, and IT logins not available to new starters, and some residents reporting they had not received rotas with sufficient advance notice (RQ6).

Anaesthetic residents reported inconsistency in the ICU induction and felt the quality of the experience depended on the consultant on the unit on the day, and some residents talked about not feeling adequately prepared for their first shifts (RQ6). Induction in paediatrics was reported by some foundation and GP residents to be overwhelming. They noted a handbook shared before induction with many attachments, and some found it difficult to identify what was most important in the beginning, though they felt the handbook was useful to reference back to when required. Foundation and GP trainees felt it would be supportive if they could shadow support for their first shift with NIPE, as this may not be until 2 months after the initial induction. Paediatric trainers highlighted there is a current Quality Improvement Project with a FY1 around NIPE planned to be used to support induction (RC6).

Foundation, core, GP medicine residents felt some departments had a very comprehensive induction, and other departments were more ad hoc; residents reported there was no specific induction for Gastroenterology, and the Respiratory induction was insufficient to prepare them for their first shift (RQ6).

Surgery residents also reported induction was variable across the department with some reporting a one-hour general surgery induction, and others indicating they received no specific departmental induction (RQ6). Surgery trainers reported departmental inductions are organised, but not always attended by new starters, and may need to be better signposted.

Foundation, core and GP medicine residents report seniors are aware of their sign-off requirements and are supportive of these. However, workload was cited as a significant challenge by both groups of medicine residents and particularly for foundation, core and GP residents with a perception that gaps in the rota are not being filled, and junior residents are unable to take breaks and regularly miss meals due to work pressures. Some residents felt staffing out of hours would be sufficient if staffing in-hours was adequate but there is a knock-on effect and residents feel overwhelmed. They reported if one ward is well staffed, residents are moved to cover another ward that is not, so all areas are continuously stretched (RQ3). Residents also reported patient flow challenges with insufficient time on weekends to discharge medically well patients due to the need to prioritise unwell patients (RQ3). Trainers acknowledged that work pressures have increased overtime with junior doctors now supporting more patients with more complex needs and the expectation that patients are discharged within a quicker timeframe. There were reports of significantly high rates of sickness among foundation, core and GP medicine residents potentially exacerbated by residents’ challenges in accessing annual leave. Medicine trainers noted the high rate of sickness in the department and planned to run a project to better understand the issue and causes (RQ2). Foundation, core and GP residents reported they could access leave, but not the specific days they want, and leave may be cancelled or rejected due to staffing. Higher residents also noted challenges in accessing annual and study leave due to staffing challenges with some residents feeling the only times they could access leave was when covering clinics or not on the ward (RQ2). Some departments were noted to be better about enabling leave with Endocrinology and Palliative Care seen as positive exceptions, but in other areas the rota was reported to be very challenging for medicine residents.

Medicine foundation, core and GP residents reported they have opportunities to attend clinics, and this is protected time within a week on the rota. Opportunities to attend other teaching can be more challenging due to workload and scheduling, some residents thought it would be supportive to record the Tuesday training session, as some have been unable to attend sessions due to staffing and end up missing out on training (RC7).

Some higher medicine trainees report rotas were provided very late, with some reporting they do not know on a Sunday night which site they will be expected at the following day, though it was felt this was improving (RQ3).

Foundation and GP paediatric residents reported training has improved and is now more structured with Tuesday sessions with speakers and other almost daily teaching provided, including radiology. Some training sessions are led by residents, with residents supported to write case reports and present projects at conferences. Higher paediatric residents felt it was more difficult to attend training due to shift patterns and felt this should be reviewed to enable more residents to attend the ground round (RC8). They also felt the workload is high and would be supported by a phlebotomy service on the Bramble ward as doctors are required to take a lot of time out of the day to take bloods. Trainers noted there are ongoing talks about phlebotomy on Bramble and a new simulation session planned on taking bloods and inserting cannulas to support staff (RC9).

Foundation and GP paediatric residents praised the rota, reporting they can access annual and study leave and attend clinics. They noted if there is sickness in the department, then the clinic day may be forfeited, but will be rescheduled at another point. The rota is supported by a SHO who understands and supports their training needs. For higher paediatric residents the rota design was felt to be stretched and challenging with residents reporting it is difficult to take annual leave. They reported SPA and clinic time is protected, though this can be difficult when there is sickness and to accommodate annual leave. The rota co-ordinator and college tutor were noted be supportive of taking of leave, but to allow this the rota may be in breach of safe staffing requirements. Trainers reported a 1 in 11 rota has been newly implemented and anticipate it will be reviewed in 2-3 months.

Most anaesthetic residents felt their rota coordinator was very accommodating, the rota comes out well in advance, and is supportive noting there was a lot of support and input from the college tutor for dual training provisions. There is a rolling rota that residents can generally extrapolate for multiple months. However, in ICU anaesthetic residents raised concerns about staffing as they felt two residents is insufficient coverage, with a third resident needed as a float in the rota line based on their experiences in other trusts (RC10). The current staffing was felt to cause handover challenges.

Surgery residents also praised their rota coordinators who were felt to be good at accommodating requests and ensuring fair workload distributions, though they noted some challenges accessing study leave due to staffing and rota constraints, and felt approval processes can be slow, with some trainees waiting weeks for confirmation. Annual leave was generally approved, though staffing levels may make it difficult to take time off at preferred times. Staffing was noted to impact training opportunities with residents often expected to fill rota gaps, which may reduce learning time, and challenges most significantly felt in general surgery (RQ7).

Developing and supporting supervisors

Anaesthetic trainers felt supported by the trust education team and the department and reported they receive appropriate 0.25 PA for educational supervision, including for those supporting Locally Employed Doctors (LEDs), however they felt time to support teaching may be challenged due to high service demands and workloads and are looking at mitigations to ensure residents are appropriately supported.

Medicine trainers also felt well supported by colleagues and the trust education team and reported they receive 0.25 PA for the educational supervisor role (but noted there is no additional pay for clinical supervision). Surgery trainers report they feel supported by the trust education team and receive appropriate PA remuneration.

Paediatric trainers felt well supported by colleagues, but noted the department has many residents, clinical fellows and LEDs who also require training, and under 20 trainers and noted this is very challenging. Paediatric trainers noted they get 0.25 PA for the educational supervisor role, but this does not include LEDs. The paediatric college tutor was reported to be supporting many trainees with only 1 PA. The trust has advertised for a deputy college tutor to support in acknowledgement that the unit has many residents, and the workload is large (RC11). Paediatric trainers felt it would be very helpful if the department administrative workforce support was enhanced as they spend a lot of time repeating the same administrative tasks. Administrative support was also required to support induction improvements including agendas and other paperwork (RC11).

Delivering curricula and assessments

Anaesthetic residents felt they were able to attend planned education sessions, but core residents felt accessing scheduled regional teaching days was more challenging due to rota commitments and a lack of clarity about who could support them with rota swaps. Residents felt regional teaching days should be protected in the rota and had concerns this was impacting their required attendance; it was felt this had previously been addressed but had reverted following the most recent junior doctor rotation (RC12). Most anaesthetic residents were able to meet with supervisors though availability was reported to vary. Supervisors were felt to be generally supportive, but workload constraints can limit one-on-one time. Some residents report receiving timely assessment sign offs, but this was challenging for others. Many residents also felt they needed more formal structured weekly teaching in ICU, they noted trainers provide 15-minute training sessions but felt these could be more comprehensive if expanded to longer sessions.

Foundation and GP Paediatric residents felt supported to achieve their curriculum requirements and noted higher residents’ approach them to complete Workplace Based Assessments (WPBAs). Foundation and GP Paediatric residents felt they had good opportunities to meet with their clinical and educational supervisors and felt encouraged whether they planned to specialise in paediatrics or not. Most higher paediatric residents also indicated they can meet with their clinical and educational supervisors, though some had struggled to get these meetings, and some were concerned there is insufficient support for those about to achieve their completing of training. Others referenced limited opportunities to complete WPBAs in neonates, though consultants in neonates were reported to be supportive. Some residents felt because neonatal consultants take on many responsibilities, they may not be provided with sufficient opportunity to develop clinical skills and instead are acting down doing admin and taking bloods. Some residents felt consultants will support learning opportunities, but they had to push for access to certain activities including cranial ultrasounds and leading ward rounds, which are potentially missed learning opportunities. 

Foundation, core and GP Medicine residents reported they are not always released to attend teaching due to workload, and residents felt they needed to advocate for themselves in order to attend mandatory training. They noted the expectation is they attend 80% of training, but there are not enough doctors to leave their post and maintain safe staffing levels (RQ3, RQ7). Residents also highlighted that teaching is not recorded in order to support face to face attendance, but felt they miss teaching opportunities they would benefit from because they unable to leave the ward (due to workload) and unable to watch the session via a recording when they have capacity (RC7).

Many foundation, core and GP surgery residents across subspecialties indicated they are no longer being offered weekly teaching, though this had previously been provided, and reported it can be challenging accessing annual and study leave due to staffing levels. Higher surgery residents also noted it can be challenging to achieve required experiences and core competencies, and some felt service delivery pressures can negatively impact training (RQ7).

Plastic surgery residents reported excellent supervision and training structures. Urology residents also praised their placement and felt they receive excellent hands-on experience with regular weekly teaching to discuss cases, though both groups of Urology residents were more critical of the rota, with junior residents indicating the rota does not support their ability to take study leave, and higher residents feeling the rota did not support their training requirements, and they required more core competencies in theatre rather than robotic education.

Developing a sustainable workforce

Most residents across programmes would recommend their placement as a training site due to the experiences they receive and the feeling that people in the trust are friendly. Some residents felt the trust is improving and feel they have a voice and more opportunities for feedback than previously. 

Areas that are working well

Good practice

Areas for improvement

Immediate mandatory requirements

Mandatory requirements

Recommendations

Report approval

Report completed by: Marjorie Casey, Education Quality Manager

Review lead: Tracy Wray, Head of Education Quality

Date approved by review lead: 14 April 2025

NHS England authorised signature: Dr Christopher O’Loughlin, Deputy Postgraduate Dean

Date authorised: 14 April 2025

Final report submitted to organisation: 27 March 2025