A grave injustice has been inflicted on psychiatric trainees - particularly the staff and associate specialist group - by its own royal college. The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) has seen fit to invalidate a pass in MRCPsych Part 1 retrospectively.
Under the old system, the exams were divided into Parts 1 and 2. Each part had a written and a clinical component. But, the RCPsych changed its exams to three written papers followed by a clinical assessment of skills and competencies examination (CASC).
In this system, a pass in paper 1 and 2 can be banked forever. However, after passing paper 3 of the exam, you get four chances at CASC. If you fail to pass it within an allocated timeframe, you are expected to re-sit paper 3 and then the cycle continues.
Part of the process was that the college set a validity period for those who hold a pass in Part I of the previous format. The college decided that a pass in Part I will be expired, and will not count towards completing the membership exams, by July 2010.
The trainees were not aware or informed that this could be the case when they sat for this exam. The regulations of the previous format of the exam (to the best of our knowledge) did not state a number on attempts or period of validity.
Part I candidates had to endure the stress of sitting the OSCE exam, which took a lot of effort and competence. This is now going to be discarded, and candidates are disadvantaged by the above decision. What makes it worse is the fact that the college decided to consider a pass in papers 1 and 2 permanent in the new exam system.
This has been a source of great distress for many trainees and SAS doctors who feel cheated and abused at the hands of their own college. What a waste of time and money for them.
The specialty of psychiatry is already experiencing the consequences of the MMC debacle. Recruitment and retention problems in this already battered specialty are surfacing and this decision will further aggravate the problem as many people are considering working abroad. Countries like Australia and Canada are already actively recruiting experienced psychiatrists from the UK.
A group of trainee and SAS psychiatrists have recently set up an e-petition calling for the RCPsych to reconsider its decision. It’s been signed by 200 doctors and I urge readers to put their names towards helping our cause.
We are even considering a legal challenge. It’s time the college listened to its trainees and SAS doctors whose careers are being compromised.
Tags: Exams, psychiatry
Seems really unfair - I’ve signed!
I find the royal college of psychiatrist decision to invalidate the Part 1 extremely unfair not only due to the hard effort that candidate has put into but more importantly to the way the royal college dealt with the matter, the lack of understanding and compassion especially in my situation where I was pregnant then on maternity leave then was physically unwell, this meant that the three year window to finish my exam was cut short to only six months yet the letter I got from the royal college when I explained all of this was lacking any sort of understanding, I feel angry and disappointed.
this is horrible. who do the royal college think they are?
This is an unfair decision made by the Rcpsych and I strongly resent.
I am utterly dismayed that the college is not listening to it own trainees and sas doctors. Its like breaking your head against a wall, writing to the college.
Its unheard of in the history of Other Royal colleges and why is it so here????
The sas doctors form a major workforce in the NHS and the majority of the workforce in psychiatry are overseas doctors ??? helpless victims ?? Do they have a voice to oppose the prestigious Rcpsych!! No they dont.
Its an instituition in disguise to make money and which is quite evident in the overall pass percentage in the recent exmainations.
The college is in denial against the injustice and refuse to acknowledge the plight
of the doctors ,whose careers have been ruined.
GOD SAVE THE RCpsych.
This is highly unfair by Royal college of Psychiatrists..i think they are quite confused and it has become difficult for them to understand what and why they are doing all these???? RCPsych must look into empathetically and rectify its decison.
Very unfair. Royal college does not understand the situations of candidates.Would be better to move to GP or any other speciality.Not helpful when they are despirate to recruite candidates!
I find it very hard to see any advantage of invalidating passes of the Part I examination. This had a demanding clinical component and, as such, I feel contributed to the validity of the examination process. By reducing the clinical component to just one examination (the CASC), trainees could feel that the Royal College is cynically maximising its profits at the expense (in many ways) of its trainees (and future members) by having more (cheap) written examinations and less (expensive and difficult to organise) clinical examinations.
Why such ire? The MRCPsych examination provides entry to a college and they are allowed to set their rules of entry. Surely 3 attempts should be more than enough to prove you are of the right calibre to warrant such membership?
I am surprised that men and women in their 30s can exhibit such vitriol and learned helplessness. You are not forced to do these exams nor should you cry foul when you fail to meet the expected standard.
Proper preparation prevents poor performance.
This is unfair and illegal they cant invalidate an exam retrospectively just becuse they have changed their minds and changed the exam pattern. Yes many victims would think of leaving the country and iam one of them.
Well it appears that the college gave enough notice to all prospective candidates. Why didn’t anyone raise this issue then-seems like the only people who are raising this now are the ones who accepted it then and appeared for the new format of the exams and haven’t passed.
If you thought it was fair then so why cry foul now. 3 years to meet all requirements for membership seems to be reasonable and it appeared to be reasonable to all of those who are crying foul now.
Just because people haven’t passed the exam in 3 years that the college gave does not mean it is unfair
Try taking s rcpsych exam n I’ll ask you why we r crying foul now. The exam r highly unstandardised and then their is no consistency in the pass mark setting.I also think that it is highly unempathic on people’s part to call the cohort raising their voice incompetent.different people had different circumstances which nay have prevented them from passing the exam.
The main issue is the injustice in taking a reterospective decision for the detriment of the few.
Almost all these doctors who were disadvantaged by this decision are filling SAS grades now. I, like many others, went through some personal difficulties and/or major life events that forced us to leave training. I did not go after locum jobs but a job to make me survive. Putting exams aside was certainly not an option. We all would have loved to finish the membership exams straight away but was prevented by the changing circumstances in our lives (by large overseas graduate doctors). The college’s decision was taken in retrospect and it is not to invalidate a “parking permit”. This is a hard work, efforts, energy and stress that we had to endure, and standards that we had to meet. Just think of the money spent by deaneries for the 48 months of training that I had and the 3 years of attendance at the academic course in Manchester University, not to mention our own personal funding for books and courses. How fair is it to scrap all this and bin it. If the knowledge, skills, and experience that was gained then is not up to date and becomes invalid, then you can apply this even to all candidate who finished their membership many years back. You can argue that the knowledge, skills and experience of these doctors (full MRCPsych) are not up to date or valid now. However the Good Standards of Medical Practice, is that you keep youself up to date and searching after evidence wherever applicable. This is exactly what all Part I candidates are doing. I had to pile a detailed portfolio of evidence on competence/learning/reflective practice and CPD and submit it to the College Tutor and Director of Medical Education to have their signature as sponsors for the Paper 3 and CASC.
Professor Bateman in his “standard” reply to many candidates who raised this issue was, that the decision was taken after careful consideration and discussion with many comittees. I wonder if the SAS comittee in the college was consulted about this, as many of the doctors who hold a pass in part I have been filling career SAS grades. I certainly did not hear about shuch a consultation and would be interested to hear from the comittee if such a matter was passed by them. I am registered as an inceptor with college since 2005. I am not sure if this type of registration still exists, but was aimed at those who are in their training and aiming at finishing their membership exams. When you are registered with the college as a member, fellow, affiliate or an inceptor, you would expect to hear about such consdieration and discussions. We were informed after the college changed the regulations and not about the consultation taking place.
This is the college of what is considered to be a caring profession, making such unfair and unjust changes, without considering the impact on its delegates and members.
It is very unfair for the College to invalidate exams retrospectively. Serious personal circumstances may limit how many exams doctors can take consecutively.
It should be irrelevant when the exams were taken. The exams were valid when doctors sat them so are reflective of their knowledge at the time.
It is mystifying that one set of carefully constructed exams can be outdated when their replacement is made permanent. How can the College be so sure that they won’t want to change Papers 1 & 2 in the future?
I would like to know the RC’s explanation for not invalidating old Part 2 MRCPsych?
I am unable to explain to myself the reasons why Part-1 of an exam can become invalid with time for certain candidates and remain valid for candidate who have cleared the MRCPsych in old system.
If it is argued that the deficiencies of Part-1 were balanced by Part-2 and later by Paper-3 and CASC then this arrangement should still hold on and why it should change after Jun 10. It would be interesting to note the reasons / rational behind invalidating part one.
At the time we took part 1, I dont think we were told that part 1 is valid for a perticular time period. I think those who are involved shoud get legal advice about whether it is legally correct to retrospectively invalidate an exam.
That is unfair..How could the Royal College take off Part 1 from people Why papers 1 and 2 are permanent and not part 1. When people passed part 1 they were never told that it will expire sometime What about the efforts part 1 holder spent to get it It is really unfair and I think it needs to be reviewed as it may affect good number.
I’m sorry to see the attitude of the college and some of the people who posted their remarks here. Im sure these are from people who have passed these exams before the whole overhauling of the system. I would like them to re-sit the exam now and then decide how many attempts are required or not required for that matter.
Besides I totallly agree that this rule is unfair and unjust and its not just this but the fact that the college has no set standard for this exam. The change the pass mark and the exams fee when and how they please.Can someone explain why RCPsych is not accountable for its decisions and policies ?
Everyone is entitled to a view and I can see that Jack and A.N Other feel that we are wrong in being upset.As one of the people affected by this ruling I thing the rules should be the same for everyone. people who failed the part 1 when we passed it now have a secure paper 1 and 2.I regret passing it then. Anything that happens retrospectively always warrants a reaction…..even if its a desired outcome. The only problem is that our reaction comes with the thought of a career ending.I was a surgical SHO with my part 1 and months away from sitting my part 2.I thought I was following my heart by leaving that and taking up psychiatry( I have no regrets whatsoever). This ruling has in everyway demoralised me and left me doubting my abilities. Maybe I am not good enough but thats not something I can just accept. I did not get this far by being that bad.
Having the membership is not a guarantee of up to date knowledge. What it does show is that people have the ability to retain and recall quickly a vast amount of clinical knowledge . Updating the exams to reflect the latest knowledge assumes that doctors do not do this for themselves.
If this is the reason for invalidating the old Part 1, then surely the college is inferring that all those who passed previously are not up to standard. Can the college give us a better reason other than the standard reply of ‘increasing flexibility?’
i am afraid they cant and thats why they are behaving in the most irrational of ways possible. i think we should seriously consider legal challenge and seek remedy’s help in this.
I am surprised at some of the insensitive comments made here by some people who think that failing CASC is due to our incompetencies.
The old MRCPsych exams had overall pass rates (theory and clinical exam put together) of about 45% and this was the case with both part 1 and part 2 exams. However in the new exam system, the pass rates are like 30% for theory papers and of those who pass paper 3 , only about a third pass the clinical n(CASC) exams. So if a person hopes to get MRCPsych (in the first attempt) after passing paers 1 and 2, he/she has only 10% chance of getting MRCPsych in the first attempt which is extremely frustrating.
Invalidation of part 1 retrospectively is something which is just unbelievable. I have lost all respect for the College and it’s exams and it’s reputation.
This is an absolutely inhumane treatment of colleagues by the Royal College. They have totally overlooked the hardwork/sacrifices made by us when we gave the
Part-1 exam, which had an OSCE component as well. To me the the RCPsych exams have become this shameless money making exercise to exploit IMGs.
The College say they want us all to pass the new Paper1&2 formats so that our patients and families know that we’ve “mastered the current knowledge&competencies required for a psychiatrist”…..is this a joke!??How many of our current Consultants actually fulfill this clause?! Quite sad state of affairs…
I absolutely and strongly agree with people who think that thi s exam is a mockery of an exam,i passed part 1(old),failed in CASC 3 times,everytime getting 11 passes,shattered,somehow passed this time.What kind of exam is it,i don’t know why i failed,i don’t know how i passed(does anyone who has passed knows).I am relieved of the stress of re taking CASC,but i have lost all respect and pride of possesing RCPsych degree becuase it has lost its credibility in many of my psychiatrist colleagues’s eyes.Can royal college do something to get back the respect and support that it has lost because of this new “LUCK BY CHANCE” EXAM.I WILL STAND BY YOU IF THERE IS ANY FORUM TO SHARE,
Till that happens i would say it is not your knowledge /skills that failed you,you weren’t lucky enough this time!
may it strikes next time,GOOD LUCK my ill fated colleagues
The Royal College of Psych have gone bonkers!!! they are discrimnatory and narciscistic between Howard and Bate. I am sure if they were to do the CASC or the examsthemselves, they will not pass, all thinsg being equal. They are now selling the MRCPsych degree to people in Hong Kong, fooling them with the title and collecting huge sum from them. What do people from HK need MRCPsych for without a GMC and UK experience…Scam of an exam. The psychiatrist within the NHS are deprived of their career progression by unstandardised manipulatory exam called MRCPsych and now they want to forcefully take away our hard work and success in the part 1. We shall meet in court…confused bunch of executives!!!