FrontPoint Systems Ltd

Following up on the letter from Prof Templeton, president of the RCOG to Dame Carol Black who heads the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges & has been supportive of the current MTAS process, which I covered in my previous post titled “Discrimination“, I have been trying to obtain comments from the various Royal Colleges, especially ones part of the review group.

So far,

No comment, wait till next week is the message from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The RCOG is now backtracking with this letter which I quote here:

Letter regarding international graduates and the RCOG

Thank you for your letter. I have much regret if the statement you referred to has caused distress. It was certainly not meant to appear discriminatory, although I can see how it might appear that way.

Let me first say that there is no intention in this College to discourage International Medical Graduates from taking up a career in obstetrics and gynaecology, far from it. We are a very international College in all respects, and proud of it. You will know, for example how hard we worked on behalf of IMGs last year when the immigration rules changed. For many years the speciality in the UK has benefited from the skills and contribution of overseas doctors.

At the same time we have been concerned to encourage more UK graduates to consider a career in our specialty. There have been far fewer UK graduates taking up obstetrics and gynaecology compared to most other specialties and this has been a major thrust of our recruitment drive. Our concern on this occasion was that the problems around MTAS might be perceived as a further deterrent to FY2 (MMC) doctors considering a career in obstetrics and gynaecology.

Many doctors, including many IMGs, have written to me expressing concern about MTAS and in particular concerned that they have not been shortlisted. In each case we have been encouraging and advised that they persevere with their wish to take up obstetrics and gynaecology as a career. Many have been advised to consider applications in the second round, which will be very different. Increasingly, there is also the likelihood of review of applications in round one.

For those selected for interview we have encouraged careful preparation. We need all those with the ability and aptitude in obstetrics and gynaecology. In short we need more doctors willing to consider a career in our specialty.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain our position more fully. I am also posting a copy of this letter on our website and I would be grateful if you could draw your colleagues’ attention to it.

Allan Templeton
President

However this does not fully explain the “fail to identify UK graduates, which we all thought was the major purpose of MMC” statement. Until I receive a reply, my presumption is that the organisations concerned are in agreement with the statement above.

Indeed there has been no explanation from the AOMRC as to the purpose of the inclusion of “eligibility criteria” in the terms of the review.

Professor Dame Carol Black, president of the AOMRC stated in a telephone interview that she had no recollection of the email in question & that it would be reviewed. However she was glad that Professor Templeton had explained his remarks. She also said that IMGs would be treated on the same terms as UK graduates for the purposes of the first round of interviews which are ongoing. She was confident that eligibility criteria for IMGs & HSMP holders was not part of the ongoing review and that it might be considered at a later date depending on the result of the ongoing appeal in the courts with hearings in April.
Someone might need to tell the DoH as you can see from the link, the DoH seems to consider “eligibility criteria” including IMGs & HSMP as part of the current process that is due to report by the end of March.

A full statement is awaited in due course.

No reply yet from the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (Professor Neil Douglas). A spokesperson said “Professor Douglas has not had a chance to look at the site”. I was given to understand that a comment was unlikely this afternoon.

No reply yet from the Royal College of Surgeons of England (Mr Bernard Ribeiro). A reply might happen next week. I have been informed by email that Mr Ribeiro is not prepared to comment until he has discussed this matter with members of the group.

No reply yet from the Royal College of Anaesthetists (Dr Judith Hulf). It might be Monday by the time I receive a reply.

No reply yet from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (Dr Paul Dimitri)

No reply yet from the Royal College of Psychiatrists (Professor Sheila Hollins)

No comment has been sought from the MMC team as it is not worth asking them anything.

A spokesperson for the Royal College of Physicians of London said that Prof Ian Gilmore was having difficulties with internet access & was therefore unable to comment fully but

“It was never our understanding that MMC was aimed particularly at UK graduates and we can’t shed any light on the email from the president of the RCOG to the chairman of the AOMRC.”

A further detailed statement is awaited.

My views about the whole process are still the same.

I would like to point out also that though this particular email was discovered & some degree of clarification obtained, there is no record kept of the politics of the nudge and the wink. The insidious effects of these activities are only discovered later in the day & are difficult to track but they do happen.

Share This

This entry was posted on Friday, March 16th, 2007 at 1:17 pm and is filed under Clinical, NHS, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.