The use of e-learning may offer a number of benefits to an organisation. However, in all but the smallest healthcare organisations such a small GP’s practice with a single stage [activity] plan, e-learning is not acceptable as the sole means of training staff. E-learning can only be used to support training delivered by a competent [specialist] safety adviser.
 E-learning is not acceptable as the sole means of training for the following reasons:
• it does not take account of significant findings from [specific] risk assessments;
• it does not take account of changes in working practice;
• it cannot adequately train staff in [a physical process], particularly those involving patient [safety];
• it is unlikely to provide for job-specific training;
• there is little opportunity for direct feedback to trainee questions;
 In exceptional circumstances where a member of staff cannot be made available for training delivered by the [specialist] safety adviser (due, for example, to long-term sickness), the use of e-learning may be considered as a temporary alternative. However, no member of staff should be permitted to continue their duties with a gap in their record of training conducted by the [specialist] safety adviser longer than twice the training interval identified in the training needs analysis.
 Any training delivered by e-learning should be completed within one month of the session commencing. Any session not completed within the month should result in the e-learning programme being recommenced
The most astonishing part of this is the list of reasons for which elearning is a prohibited solution. It points to me that there are some underlying assumptions here, most probably that the catch-all term "elearning" in this case means "generic SCORM courseware".
Curiously it says nothing about the outcomes from elearning - though for that matter, neither does it for the face-to-face sessions - but the key metric, it would seem, is completion. And we know how reliable that is.
On the other hand, I can't argue with its requirement that some physical activity can only be taught in ILT sessions, so it is arguing for a blended solution, which makes sense. It's refreshing to see that the person specification (not shown) for one of the key roles includes the Certificate in Training Practice too, recognising the key role training plays in this area of preventative action. It's just a shame that the authors' bad experience of elearning leads to such a harsh and inaccurate critique of one mode of training.