Posts Tagged ‘Tooke Report’

“FY trainees wasting time in dead end jobs”

By Francesca Robinson - 17th May 2010 4:53 pm

Many medical graduates are wasting time doing irrelevant jobs in their foundation years, a review of the training programme has been told.

The evaluation of the Foundation Programme for Medical Education England has also been warned that foundation trainees are failing to gain enough acute medical experience.

Several organisations are calling for the second foundation year (FY2) to be scrapped to enable trainees to move more swiftly into core training posts more relevant to their chosen career pathways.

This was recommended by the Tooke Review in 2008 but ignored by the then health secretary Alan Johnson.

This latest review, led by Professor John Collins, a general surgeon and academic from Oxford University, has been commissioned as part of the NHS next Stage Review.

Remedy UK, the campaign group which campaigns for training reform, has told Collins that trainees allocated FY1 jobs in areas such as radiology, pathology and anaesthetics are being given minimal levels of responsibility. On call experience is often lacking and too many FY1s are not getting experience of managing acute medical problems or working regularly as first on call doctor. 

Remedy says the FY1 year should be refocused on the “core bread and butter” with two six month posts in core medicine and surgery with sufficient exposure to common on call emergencies.

It suggests FY1 could be re-branded as the “house doctor” year to emphasise the professionalism and responsibility that come with the first year job. Remedy also recommends that foundation training should be better regulated with robust trainee surveys and frequent hospital visits to ensure trainees are gaining enough acute medical experience.

Ben Dean, a former Remedy committee member and surgical trainee from the Oxford region, said: “We have got to do something about the reduction in hours and experiential learning. Ten years ago house officer jobs used to be better regulated so a training post would not be allowed if it didn’t have any training content in the job.

“When Modernising Medical Careers came along in 2006-07 numerous non training jobs were incorporated into the Foundation Programme and now there are very specialised jobs such as radiology, pathology, lab based or public health work where trainees get no acute experience of seeing patients for the first time.”

The Royal College of Physicians is also calling for trainees to move directly into core medical training after FY1. “A large proportion of our consultants and doctors in training report that for many of them the significant proportion of the experiences they have in the second foundation year are often irrelevant to their future practice when they have already decided on a set route. Our finding is that many trainee doctors don’t find any step up of responsibility as they move into second year,” said a spokesman.

He said they acknowledged that there would some serious hurdles to overcome to change the system so instead they would like to see would-be physicians who have already chosen a defined career path to be allowed to choose more appropriate career options in FY2.  

The Royal College of Surgeons says the Foundation Programme as it is currently operating is failing to meet either the needs of the trainees or the service in surgery. In its submission, it says the four month placements are too short to give trainees sufficient exposure to all the elements of surgical care from a patient’s initial appointment through to post operative follow up. The RCS recommends that a single pre-registration foundation year should be followed by three years of core training. It says this proposal has near unanimous support from surgical trainees.

Shree Datta, chair of the Junior Doctors Committee, said they were very supportive of the foundation programme and the measures that had been introduced by the UKFPO to develop the programme. 

“Like anything there is always room for development and nothing will ever be perfect for everyone but certainly we feel the Foundation Programme has achieved what it aimed to do in that it has made sure that most people have a broad based training,” she said.

Collins said the needs of patients and medical graduates would be central to his evaluation of the Foundation Programme: “I can give trainees my personal assurance that their views will be listened to and taken into account in considering the best way forward in managing the transition points as doctors move through their training.”

His report is expected to be submitted to the health secretary in the autumn.

Trainees can voice their opinions on MEE events being held on 19/20 May in London and Leeds.

Tis the season of new specialty training jobs

By Dr Shree Datta, chair of the BMA's junior doctors committee - 7th December 2009 5:45 pm

December is traditionally the time of year that most people get ready for Christmas.

Many junior doctors also face the additional pressure of applying for new jobs. But, with all the distractions of the festive season, it is important that everyone understands the recruitment process to maximise their chances of getting the training post they want.

Recruitment for specialty training officially began on the 4 December. And whilst the ill-conceived MTAS has been confined to the dustbin of history; we cannot be complacent.

There were glitches in the some of the application systems last year, but thankfully these were sorted out before any junior doctors were disadvantaged. However, they reminded us of the need to stay vigilant and proactive rather than reactive.

The principles of the Tooke Report should still be ringing in the ears of those responsible for recruitment. Change, although not unwelcome, must be evidence based. We must have robust piloting to find out how new systems operate in the real world and critically new computer systems must be rigorously tested.

The cost of getting selection for specialty training wrong is high, not merely financially, but in terms of affecting the public services our patients receive and the careers of individual doctors.

We have concerns over changes that may be on the horizon. There has been talk of introducing another knowledge-based test for specialty recruitment. The rationale for knowledge-based selection tests is not clear and the BMA has been critical of these tests as there is little evidence that they are a good way of selecting the best candidates.

Machine marked testing (MMT) is also looming. It has been mooted as a way of addressing the inconsistency of assessments which has caused problems for deaneries in national recruitment and has frustrated applicants.

Unless planned thoroughly, dissected microscopically and piloted, MMT will receive a hostile reception from junior doctors which it may not survive.

To maximise the chance of getting the job we want, it is critical that all applicants ensure they are familiar the process for 2010. The MMC website and Deanery websites are the main resources, although posts may also be advertised via BMJ Careers and NHS jobs.

If applicants encounter problems during the recruitment process they should contact the BMA on 0300 123 1233 so that we can put pressure on those responsible.

Doing your research thoroughly prior to applying or accepting a post is crucial as there are regional variations in the content of training programmes. Study leave and relocation allowances can also vary and the best way to find out what’s available is to speak to those in post currently.

This is the only way to avoid the Nightmare before Christmas. Good luck!

Juniors lack confidence in MMC

By Mike Broad - 21st April 2009 11:57 am

Doctors continue to have little confidence in standards of training and care delivered under Modernising Medical Careers (MMC), a survey by Remedy UK reveals. 

Despite a year passing since the Tooke Report, and two from the MTAS debacle, the overwhelming majority of doctors remain opposed to MMC. Seventy eight percent of 877 doctors claim patient care and postgraduate training is worse now than before MMC. 

“I can’t see a single benefit,” one respondent lamented. “Honestly, I can’t. MMC has managed to achieve the exact opposite of everything it was intended to achieve – poor training, reduced flexibility, a lost tribe of SHOs and a disenchanted workforce.”

Fifteen percent did acknowledge that MMC has positive aspects but with the caveat that implementation was poor. Another respondent summed up many of the comments when they described MMC as: “Good in theory, very bad in practice.”

MMC is clearly having an ongoing impact on doctors’ morale. Just under a quarter of respondents expressed a desire to leave medicine and do a different job, while just over a quarter would not advise someone to take up a career in medicine.

“The job is neither stable nor well paid considering the number of hours worked,” complained another respondent. “Trusts work the system to ensure trainees receive minimum banding. Training is continually restructured in a way which is ill thought out and geared towards saving money. The role of the doctor is displaced by non-medical specialists with narrow and limited responsibility. And the consultant grade, which I have been aiming for, will be radically different by the end of my training and I will undertake it with a fraction of the experience of my predecessors.”

One doctor simply said: “Become a dentist or a lawyer instead.”

While many doctors were negative about MMC, there was a much more positive reaction to being a doctor. It’s still considered a good job, despite the changes. Of the sample, 52% are satisfied in their work against 29% who are dissatisfied. Many will also still recommend it as a career. One respondent commented: “Go for it! Things will get better and it’s got to be better than the City right now…”

But there is a price to pay for becoming a doctor. The survey shows that the average debt on graduation of these respondents was nearly £15,000. Nearly half were still paying off student loads.

There’s no doubt that many doctors remain angry with those responsible for MMC. Sixty four percent of respondents claim MMC has had a detrimental effect on their careers.

One described it as: “A disgraceful and catastrophic episode imposed by deceitful quislings who lied about their real intentions and who betrayed their colleagues and the profession.”

Another said: “It’s positive that I got the job I wanted. But it was a shattering and degrading experience. I’m now very cynical about senior doctors and politicians, and especially senior doctors who are also politicians.”

The Department of Health said sufficient efforts are already made to canvass doctors’ opinions. “The deaneries, colleges and the MMC programme have a range of ways of listening to and taking account of the views of doctors as part of annual planning for recruitment and postgraduate medical education,” said a spokesperson. “The current recruitment process and structure of training is based on feedback from consultation, an online survey of junior doctors and a programme of major discussion events with doctors across the regions that took place last year.”

Lindsay Cooke, co-chair of Remedy UK, wasn’t surprised by the ongoing resentment.

She said: “MMC is a political construct which offends almost every core value today’s doctors possess. It was untried and untested; it compromises individual autonomy and choice; it breaks the apprentice model of experiential learning; and it turns doctors from team member to shift worker.

“Doctors are special people, for sure, but they’re people first. MMC turns them into widgets or cogs in a medicine delivery machine.”

She believes the government needs to conduct a comprehensive survey into doctors’ opinion of MMC.

Remedy is also calling for full implementation of the Tooke Report. A DH spokesperson said: “Many of the changes were in the NHS Next Stage Review and are being taken forward.”

Cooke wants NHS: Medical Education England (MEE) – a new independent body advising the government on education, training and workforce policy – to be strengthened, “with teeth and led by those experienced in medical training would be a good start”.

“Advisory committees such as MEE have significant power and influence,” responded the DH spokesperson. “For example, Ministers have accepted every recommendation made by the MMC England Programme Board. In this way, advisory bodies can directly influence policy decisions. The authority and influence of MEE comes from the quality and clarity of advice that it provides to Ministers.”

Remedy UK Survey