Showing 31–40 of 262 reviews (3 star)
I would like the course to be more tailored towards specifically safeguarding supervision and how this may differ from other supervision. I enjoyed linking with other professionals from different trusts.
The course was well structured but lacked relevance to Safeguarding practice. It was generic in most parts and lacked application to how it can be applied in the context of my role. There were far too many breakout rooms which made the training quite fragmented. I understand there needs to be a balance between a lecture and a workshop but 65% of the 2 days were spent in break out rooms.
I had some knowledge from management and staff but, this course should be essential for my role
This course was very enjoyable. The trainer displayed exceptional knowledge of the subject matter, and was clearly extremely experienced. I believe the delivery was often too slow which impacted the overall pacing of the course, resulting in it feeling rather rushed on day 2. Some engagement beforehand with the client to understand how exactly the Home Office worked, and find out a bit more about the needs of the participants may have been helpful. Some of the interactions created quite a tense environment at times. In the main though, an enjoyable course with very interesting content.
Good input. Trainer knows his stuff. Didn’t feel like I made massive leaps and bounds in my understanding but there was some very valuable points which I will use in the future.
Training was fine. More geared towards investigators. Would have been better in person.
The trainer had a lot of IT issues and the session started late due to this plus during the day the IT issuers continued. The trainer was interesting and insightful but the IT issues did cause an issue.
The first 2 days had very little content - no update on CrimPr rules / case law etc. No best practice answers on experience / independence. Day 1 - just a general discussion around any concerns we had re written reports / oral evidence. We could have had this chat in house. Also gave contradictory advice to previous courses saying we should only answer questions in our subject area that we thought were relevant - i.e. not answer the questions (by asking judge to have question rephrased etc) if we do not believe they are relevant Day 2 - 60 minutes to discuss a report we were supposed to have pre read was circa 30 minutes too long. Key points not drawn out in a succinct summary / slide - just a short discussion at the end. Day 3 - no benefit to combine civil and criminal cases - they are very different and felt like wasted time watching cross examination of a civil report I had not read.
Good facilitator and very good at bringing the subject to life, but I would have preferred more formal strategies on how to manage conflict and less break out rooms.