InPractice is always striving to provide innovative training for health professionals. As we launch new training courses and products we will issue a press release and post a copy of it on this page, along with statements we may make if our training is commented on in the courts and press. Downloadable Brochure If you haven't received a copy of our brochure please contact us... "Stimulating, interactive, challenging" Charge Nurse "Tremendous impact. I am now more knowledgeable of the issues raised" Ward Manager "Excellent, has given information that will radically change my practice" Criminal Justice Mental Health Liaison Nurse       Launch of new online software arc, July 2007 Witness training needs regulation. R v Momodou & Limani, Feb 2005 Witness training should be part of CPD. R v Momodou & Limani, Feb 2005 Plea for national guidance on witness training. Salisbury Case, June 2004 Launch of new online software, arc 25 July 2007   InPractice and the Anglia Support Partnership are pleased to announce the launch of arc, a new online software package for investigating incidents in healthcare settings. The product is the result of a joint initiative between InPractice, a medico-legal training company, and Anglia Support Partnership, an NHS organisation. arc is the product of a year-long project to create an online system that will help healthcare professionals investigate incidents, complaints and human resources issues, using root cause analysis. Witness training needs regulation R v Momodou & Limani, 2 February 2005   The directors of InPractice Training have once again called on the government for national guidance on witness training in order to safeguard the legal process. Following a judgment at The Court of Appeal today (Wednesday) on convictions relating to the Yarl's Wood Immigration Detention Centre disturbance, the issue of witness training is under the spotlight again. Both the original trial judge and the three appeal judges were severely critical of the witness training given to Group 4 employees. It was conducted by a company called Bond Solon, a sister company of Central Law Training. InPractice, which had their witness familiarisation programmes approved by a Crown Court judge last year, believe it is now more important than ever, for there to be national guidelines applied to the provision of witness familiarisation programmes. Witness Training for health professionals should be part of CPD R v Momodou & Limani, 2 February 2005   Following a ruling at the Court of Appeal today (Wednesday), which severely criticised inappropriate witness training for criminal trials, the directors of InPractice Training appealed to the health care sector to include witness familiarisation as part of ongoing training. The ruling, concerning the convictions relating to the Yarl's Wood Immigration Detention Centre disturbance in 2002, made a clear distinction between witness familiarisation and witness training. The training in this case was provided by Bond Solon a sister company of Central Law Training. InPractice, which had their witness familiarisation programmes approved by a trial judge last year, believe it is now more important than ever, for the healthcare industry to include witness familiarisation as part of ongoing training in order to avoid accusations of training for particular court appearances. Plea for national guidance on witness training Salisbury Case, June 2004   The directors of InPractice Training today (Wednesday) called for national guidance on witness training following the trial at Chester Crown Court of Barbara Salisbury. The nurse, who was employed by Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust, was found guilty of attempting to murder two of the patients in her care and sentenced to five years. The trial had been halted for four days following defence counsel’s submission that witnesses had been professionally trained by InPractice to give evidence and that this was an abuse of process. The defence also argued that the witnesses who had been trained should be excluded from giving evidence as it would have an unfair effect upon proceedings. After hearing legal debate, the judge Mr Justice Pitchford, ruled that the case should proceed and that the witnesses who had been trained could continue to give evidence as they had not discussed the case before the court.