Good enough?
That statement from the review group of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges looking at the botched MTAS implementation is out.
The independent review group, examining the selection process for junior doctors, met for the third time and agreed that round one should continue and that changes should be made to strengthen the implementation process at each level. The group agreed to set out full details next week for everyone involved in the process.
The group today made the following recommendations:
All eligible ST3 and 4 applicants will be guaranteed an interview for their first or second choice of training post. (This includes those who have been offered only their third or fourth choice at the moment).
All applicants at ST1 who have not been short-listed for any interviews will have their application reviewed. The operational details of this will be set out next week. However, where candidates meet the selection criteria they may be offered an interview in Round 1. If not, they will be offered career guidance and support to enter Round 2.
All applicants for ST2 who have not been short-listed for interview will be offered a face-to-face review with a trained medical advisor to determine whether they meet the short-listing criteria. Those who meet the criteria may be offered an interview in Round 1. Those who are not selected for interview will be offered career guidance and support to enter Round 2.
This still does not excuse the fact that there are too few positions, training or otherwise for the number of applicants. 30,000 odd doctors do not fit into 23,000 posts, only 12,500 of which are rumoured to be recognised for training. When will the truth be known about the workforce planning projections?
The Group also reviewed data on the numbers of training places and the competition ratios. It recommended that this information should be made available immediately for candidates on the MTAS website.
As yet there is no indication that these numbers have been made available.
This statement does not appear to deal with those applicants for ST 3 & 4 who have not been short-listed. I presume that the previous offer of review by an advisor would apply to this but am wary of taking anything for granted. Clarification from the AoMRC / DoH is awaited. (I was promised a clarification by the duty press officer on Friday (16.03.2007) night when I asked about this immediately after the release of this notice but as of 9 pm on Saturday (17.03.2007) night I have received no information. In view of the fact that the ST 1 & ST 2 trainees have been specifically offered reviews, I assume that the omission in the case of STs 3 & 4 is intentional.)
These recommendations will be subject to an equality impact assessment before being implemented.
Glad to see that they learnt from that recent court judgement to atleast appear to be doing the right thing.
Are these concessions going to assuage the anger felt by doctors all over the country & a large number of whom are converging in central London tomorrow for the proposed protest?
Do the concessions from the AoMRC (dated the 16th of March) satisfy you?
- No (59%)
- Need further information (24%)
- Yes (17%)
Total Votes: 29
Loading …
March 17th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Presentation again. You are, as does the current BBC article, mixing up the iniquities of MMC and MTAS with the separate issue of the oversupply of junior doctors.
The population of the UK has very little sympathy with the fact that at the moment there is not a job for every medic who wants one.
On the other hand, it might well have sympathy with the propositions that (a) there ought to be more money spent on more junior doctors than on (say) NPfIT, or QoF, or the new consultant contract, or central DoH nonsenses and (b) the ham-fisted and unfair way that the new selection and training methods have been introduced.
The medical profession does itself no favours by mixing up the issues.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
There are two issues here.
The immediate one is the catastrophic failure of MTAS which has thrown so many thousands of lives into chaos. This can be remedied by the offered modifications if they cover also the ST 3 & 4 trainees and giving everyone a chance at the first round posts, not defer them to the second round. If handled correctly, there would be very few posts for the second round.
The main issue for me is though the fact that the number of doctors in the system as well as the numbers of the new graduates coming out of med-school has been known for years. There are in fact an increased number of graduates expected every year for the next 5 years as all the new schools and enlarged classes come on stream. This was a political pledge by the government to increase the number of doctors in the NHS which would if implemented fully lift us from bottom of the table for doctors per population.
There is also a need for more medical staff to cover hospitals we are told, especially with the EWTD. Half the excuse for the service reconfigurations across the NHS is the non-availability of doctors to provide safe medical care within the limits of the EWTD.
Why then are approximately 8000 experienced doctors being forced onto the scrap-heap?
Also as the sole control on the provision of medical training as well as the monopoly employer of those trainees, surely it is not too much to ask the government to get its figures right?
At approx. £250000 per doctor, the population should be asking why billions of pounds of their money has been so mismanaged & is likely to continue to be handled so.
These are two separate issues but both have their origins in the lack of sensible workforce planning in the NHS.
The massive waste of money that is the NPfIT programme or the other drains down which money has been poured down are indeed less deserving than the basic provision of healthcare & the employment of staff to perform this service.