London/KSS

From Mmc

Dear Colleagues

London/KSS have had many calls and emails about the results of the first round of MTAS. The timescales were very tight - Round 1 opened on 22 January and by 28 February 33,000 interviews had been offered across the UK and most had been booked. None of this could have been done without a massive effort by thousands of consultants doing a year's worth of SHO and SpR shortlisting in one short burst. Nor could it have been done without a computer system. That there were delays and glitches was regrettable, but given the size and complexity of the task, and the tight deadlines, hardly surprising. The important thing is to be sure that the process has been fair, transparent and consistent and will lead to the right people being selected.

In some cases, excellent applicants with first class BScs, multiple prizes or publications and gold circuit SHO rotations were not shortlisted, and several people have written to question how this could happen. It is important to remember that it was agreed by Royal Colleges, trainee representatives, and other stakeholders that marks for higher degrees, prizes and publications would be restricted. No marks were given for prestigious rotations. The intention was for this process to be competency based. It follows from this that people with these attributes would not score highly unless they scored highly on other parts of the form.

The competencies to be tested were also widely discussed with Royal Colleges, trainees, and other stakeholders. Many were 'soft' and did not lend themselves to verification on an application form other than by asking applicants to describe their behaviour in certain clinical situations they had experienced or to offer their personal views. As it turned out, sufficient guidance was available for a substantial number of answers to be formulaic and hard to distinguish. Some applicants were benefited by this guidance, others might have scored better had they developed their own answers from their own experience as they were asked to do.

We cannot know whether the wrong people were invited for interview until they are interviewed. We should therefore proceed with Round 1 interviews. Many of those invited are exactly the trainees we would wish to see appointed. It would be quite wrong to abandon the process at this stage. Deaneries will ensure that all applicants have their eligibility rechecked on the day and that statements that they have made on their forms are verified.

I trust those who were not shortlisted by any of their four choices are being supported and told that the competition was extraordinary, that they will have been treated like everyone else, and that there is another round. They may need to choose specialties or geographies that are less competitive in Round 2.

Those who do not meet the high standards required for selection in the first round of this two stage process, will not be recruited. If this means a very large Round 2, so be it. We expect there to be runthrough as well as FTSTA opportunities remaining at the end of Round 1, albeit not in all specialties. Meanwhile, I know the MTAS team will be seeking feedback from applicants, selectors and units of application and will be reviewing the options for change - if change is indicated - before Round 2.

Meanwhile it would be most unfair on those thousands of successful applicants now preparing for their interviews to declare the process unfit for purpose at this stage.

Kind regards

Elisabeth

Elisabeth Paice Dean Director