Another day, another deal
Is this adequate or is it another fudge? Is this good enough for the headline?
STATEMENT BY THE REVIEW OF RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION FOR SPECIALTY AND GP TRAINING IN ENGLAND– WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL 2007
We recognise that this has been a challenging time for consultants, junior doctors and the service and have heard and appreciated the deep concerns that they have raised.
Serious consideration has been given to all of the options available, including a full and detailed analysis of pulling out of the current selection process completely. In the end, it was simply not a credible option. It would be impossible to place the best candidates in posts and fulfil the service needs in time for August using the old system of recruitment. We believe we have come up with the best available solution for England.
Right, so you determined that one of the major demands was not credible without releasing the evidence or the basis for your judgement.
Examination of the issues by the Review Group indicates that those concerns relate predominantly to the process of selection itself and not to the underlying principles of Modernising Medical Careers. Those principles are based on national standards, and continue to secure widespread support amongst professional leaders in the Royal Colleges and the BMA.
On what basis is the support for MMC claimed? This letter from Morris Brown et al seems pretty unequivocal to me.
The Review Group has now made its proposals for the way ahead for recruitment to specialty training. The Review Group’s proposals have recognised that implementation of its recommendations might differ between specialties and between different parts of the UK.
David Nicholson, NHS Chief Executive, will write to NHS organisations to ask that applicants and consultants be released to support this process. Further interviews will be scheduled throughout May 2007.
Doesn’t appear to be very fair! So if a trainee had applied to Scotland or Wales they get interviewed for all the posts they applied for. Now different specialties are going to go their own way as well?
There has to my mind not been a sufficient examination of the whole edifice of MMC & MTAS. Why is there a refusal to release the submissions to the review group & the evidence behind it, given that we have seen already the appalling nature of some of that which has already made its way into the public domain.
The Review Group has agreed the following decisions:
Applicants already shortlisted and offered an interview
All interviews offered in the original Round 1 will be honoured and the outcome will count.
All applicants will be given the opportunity to revise or reaffirm their order of preference in the light of competition ratios between 20 – 23 April.
Where applicants have not already been interviewed for their revised first preference, they will be invited for interview for that preference as well.
As originally planned, successful applicants will only be offered one post in this round which will be informed by the highest ranked preference for which they have successfully interviewed.
The outcome of interviews widely acknowledged to be a farce & based on a format ridiculed by pretty much everyone is to stay? What happens to those who went through one of those early interviews for their first choice?
Applicants not originally shortlisted
All applicants will be given the opportunity to revise or reaffirm their order of preference in the light of competition ratios between 20 - 23 April.
Applicants in England will be invited for interview for their affirmed first preference.
Successful applicants will only be offered one post.
So applicants to England lose out while those to Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland are treated fairly?
Applicants to general practice
Recruitment and selection for general practice continues to work satisfactorily and will continue as far as possible as originally planned, though the timetable will be revised.
In other words, a refusal to examine the facts.
Applicants for academic medical programmes
Academic medicine will have a separate selection process and we are currently in discussions with key stakeholders to finalise this plan.
Those unsuccessful in their application for an academic post will still be considered for their clinical choices in Round 1.
Applicants who are unsuccessful after their interview in Round 1
Applicants who are unsuccessful in the first recruitment round will be able to apply during Round 2.
Round 2 will be based on a revised shortlisting and interview process including a structured CV.
Still without knowing which hospital or unit they will be working in, or even geographic location.
We request that consultants continue to support this interview process which aims to appoint the best candidates to the right posts to train and to treat patients.
This is going to be the key, the degree of support received among trainees & consultants. At the moment I do not see a basis for success.
To me personally, the deal reached is unsatisfactory. However I am not the one whose career is at stake though I am concerned for the profession. Looks like the next few days will be very interesting.
This article in the Telegraph mentions additional FTSTAs though no details are given:
Mr Ribeiro has been pressing for transitional posts for the next two or three years that would allow doctors to apply more than once.
Speaking for young surgeons he said: “I will know next week how many ‘transitional training posts’ DH will need to fund to make adequate provision for this cohort of trainees to ensure that the best applicants progress and that, in the future, patients can be confident that they will receive the highest standards of surgical care.”
Alex Thomas, a medical student writes in the Guardian:
The transparently jealous attempt to devalue and dis-empower the medical profession by this Labour government has been exposed for shambolic outrage that it is. Patients can be glad that we took to the streets in opposition of the appalling sabotage of our training and education. Taxpayers can be glad we protest at the wasting of their money. But will the general public vote with their feet and demand that the government take responsibility for the mess they have created and ensure the future of the medical profession in this country?
As I have said before, when you have medical students savaging your policies, there isn’t much lower to fall.
The latest Review Group deal (04.04.2007) accepting that existing offers of interview will be honoured but offering only one interview for those previously not shortlisted
- is not good enough. (67%)
- is the best deal possible under the circumstances. (12%)
- doesn’t give enough information about the details. (12%)
- is a fair proposition. (8%)
Total Votes: 73
Loading …