Responses of BAPRAS Members and Trainees to the MTAS System

21 March 2007

Responses of BAPRAS Members and Trainees to the MTAS System

Application Form:

The IT software did not work well and websites kept crashing during the application process.
The process has not been validated other than to appoint general practitioners. Many clinicians complained that there was no training for review of the applications.
A score sheet was available on the internet before closure of the application date but was not available to all and therefore not fair to all. I understand that some companies have been making money out of this sort of information and from guidance on form filling.
The form has been described by many as an exercise in communication or a test of creative writing which did not reflect the suitability of a candidate for surgical training. There is no way of telling from the form if an applicant had actually done any surgery.
Applicants did not realise that the forms would be marked in sections by different consultants and therefore did not repeat relevant point scoring information in each section.
Answers to ‘touchy feely’ questions were given more marks than for publications, presentations etc which actually showed a commitment to a specialty.
Unequal low weighting was given to academic qualifications, prizes etc. thus reducing the value of traditional criteria which have been used to shape careers to date.

Short listing:

In many areas there was no effective long listing or pre-screening.
There was a shortage of time and support for short listing and considerable variation between Deaneries. Many clinicians felt anxious that they had not been fair.
Not everyone involved had appropriate training because of the tight deadlines. It has to be noted that March is always a busy time in Trusts as the end of the financial year approaches. Most clinicians need a minimum of six weeks to cancel clinical commitments.
Horizontal marking was not always achieved.
Sections to be marked arrived late in some Deaneries, as did the on-line training module. One consultant found that it was possible to review scores already submitted and actually could have altered those scores.
Many consultants could not easily and uniformly determine previous experience.
I have been informed that applicants in one area were instructed in how to indicate on their application forms but they were local candidates.
The scoring system was supposed to be applied equally across all deaneries but some candidates were listed in one area but not others.
The result is that many able candidates have not been short listed.

Interviews:

There was poor information for interviewers. Many were instructed upon the process on the day of interview.
Full documentation, which should have been available, was not uniformly available.
There was often a clash of interview dates and times with considerable geographical distance.
Many interviewers believe that there was not enough plastic surgery presence on interviews for plastic surgery candidates.
Some F2 candidates for plastic surgery were interviewed by general and orthopaedic surgeons and asked questions within those specialties. Otherwise questioning was described as ‘woolly’ and ‘vague’.
However, there is an acknowledgement that in some areas the whole process worked extremely well.

The Future:

Effectively the present system has been completely discredited.
There must be a complete review of the current process and a proper validation. Any form of half way house is not appropriate.
Any new system must ensure quality.
I appreciate that decisions are being made on an almost daily basis to try and improve the situation. A legal challenge must be imminent.
BAPRAS is committed to working with the Academy to ensure that the best and most able candidates become the consultants of the future in the UK.

C C Walker, FRCS ,President