It never ends
Did the Review Group think that this would never get out 
? It is believed to have been dated 5.4.2007. The document has more details.
Doctors at risk
1. There is an excess of applicants for training posts over places (both programmes and fixed-term appointments) by about 10,000. If we are to define more precisely the risk groups and the numbers in them, we need further analysis. In particular, we doubt the accuracy of the free text response on the application form amongst those who said they worked in the NHS. Amongst the 10,000, we will find many on clinical attachments, professional locums, honorary post-holders and those who already have substantive NHS career posts.
2. We believe the most vulnerable group is those Foundation graduates who may not secure ST1s or FTSTA1s. It is difficult to quantify their numbers – there may be some 500-1300 at risk. Our immediate first step is to put in place systems to analyse risk groups more accurately as the recruitment exercise progresses.
Priorities
3. Since there is a range of doctors at risk, we need a proportionate response to ensure that support is available to those who need it most and those who are more likely to remain in the longer term in the UK labour market. Our concern will be for:
Priority 1: UK medical graduates and EEA nationals, who:have made an application to MTAS and have been in a training post before 5 February 2007 and have completed a Foundation Programme or equivalent (SHOs) or are unemployed or in a service post as a result of the MMC round 1 and 2 . .
Priority 2: Other non Uk and non-EEA nationals with right of residence, unemployed or employed in a service post, since 5 February 2007, registered with MTAS and seeking MMC training.
Did you really check this separation of groups 1 & 2 with your lawyers?
Priority 3: non-UK /EEA nationals without employment – registered with the GMC, passed PLAB.
4. We want to offer priority support to UK/EEA trained doctors because of the investment we have made in them. They will get the most help, those further down the list will get some help and those in the last category could have a very limited access. The priorities will need to be checked legally before they are agreed .
Hang on a minute, I remember speaking to varied luminaries of the medical profession at the time of the Allan Templeton imbroglio who denied plans to treat IMGs differently. Am I at liberty to call them liars yet? Dame Carol Black, I am referring to you.
5. There is one group (c.500 MTAS applicants) taking time out to do higher research degrees. The Review Group may have a view on their priority and how they might be defined: Held an academic fellowship or equivalent during the period of MTAS recruitment Round 1 – that is, those who have been engaged in research leading towards a recognised higher degree (PhD, MD, MS.) and can demonstrate completion of F2 or equivalent?
6. We expect this overall approach will see a significant reduction from the notional 10,000 at risk. Work has started to develop support packages quickly as more information emerges during Round 1 and Round 2.
Is it really worth going ahead with such a flawed set of assumptions?
I would hope that Remedy UK & BAPIO get this to their lawyers asap.
I see enough in the document to contradict a number of statements made on the floor of the Commons, not to mention other public utterances.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
What do they mean ‘as more information emerges’ ? Don’t they have any idea of how many jobs there are, or how many doctors at each stage? If not how could they have given reassuring feedback earlier that there would be enough jobs?
April 24th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
One of the key selling points of computerising anything is the ability to extract much more data than before & analyse it in a variety of ways. It should have been trivial to obtain this information from a properly designed system.
They mean to create Mcjobs of course, downskilling people into non-training trust grade positions! This will have the added benefit of restricting upward mobility & avoid the consequent shortage of consultant posts for all those trained doctors.
(Before people get upset, I do not mean that those in trust grade positions are poorly skilled or incapable, just that it suits administrators to create these rather than properly administered training positions.)