2.1 This guidance has been developed to support practitioners and managers who work in the NHS and who are required to comply with the KSF. 

2.2 The marked variations in individual frameworks observed for broadly comparable posts seem to suggest that many managers and practitioners are fundamentally confused by the system. Unlike CPD Now, the KSF is not specifically designed for a particular group of practitioners and its application to medical imaging, radiation therapy and oncology can appear tenuous. There is, however, no ‘correct’ framework for any post. Provided manager and practitioner consider the framework carefully in the light of the post in question and agree on the framework, it is acceptable.

2.3 Some managers and practitioners express concern regarding the consequences of an ‘incorrect’ or inappropriate framework. It should be remembered that:

• unlike the processes of job evaluation and job matching (under ‘Agenda for Change’) there are no pay or grading implications relating to the KSF in a similar way
• pay progression is linked to performance as measured against the requirements of the individual post holder’s KSF. However, progression can only be withheld if the employer is able to evidence that the employee has failed to meet the requirements of the KSF. In this unlikely event the onus is on the employer to produce evidence of failure, not on the employee to produce evidence of compliance
• an inappropriate framework may reduce the overall value of the KSF for the post holder and service. It is likely that serious inconsistencies will become evident fairly quickly and the framework can be reviewed and amended accordingly.

2.4 The KSF can make a number of valuable contributions to staff and service development:

• managers can use the KSF to identify departmental, as well as individual, learning and development needs. This can support the formulation of a departmental learning and development strategy and requests for appropriate learning resources to ensure service delivery requirements are met. Manager and union learning representative partnerships can ensure that these processes are handled effectively and to the benefit of staff, services and patients
• practitioners can use the core dimensions to ensure that appropriate general professional standards are met
• the annual or six monthly reviews can provide an opportunity for the employee to discuss personal and professional development.

2.5 The KSF cannot of itself provide a replacement or substitute for any of the processes described under 1.8 above. However, these processes can feed into the KSF and much of the activity and documentation undertaken can provide useful evidence for the KSF review.

2.6 The Society and College of Radiographers provides a number of resources to help managers and practitioners who are required to comply with the KSF. These include:

• CPD Now. The College of Radiographers’ on-line CPD system allows users to enter their individual KSF into their CPD portfolio and to reference work done for CPD against the KSF as well. Similarly, work undertaken to comply with the KSF can be referenced to the College’s CPD framework and can count towards CPD accreditation and meeting the Health Professions Council (HPC) CPD Standards. CPD Now identifies the links between the CPD undertaken and the KSF and enables the user to keep a single record of learning activities.  A simple KSF report can be generated to streamline the KSF review process for both manager and practitioner.
• A preceptorship programme for CPD (from November 2008). This is accessed through CPD Now and provides a College of Radiographers approved CPD programme, linked to an example KSF, to help evidence progression to autonomous practice. For NHS employees this is designed to support career progression from a Band 5 to a Band 6 post.
• The Society of Radiographers’ website at www.sor.org [2] contains useful guidance and example KSF profiles.