North Central London School of Anaesthesia
From Mmc
Resignation from MTAS Interviews North Central London School of Anaesthesia
A meeting was held of the School Executive of the North Central London School of Anaesthesia on 9/3/07 to discuss the problems of the first MTAS round. We were very concerned at the many irregularities of procedure and process that took place during shortlisting. We were divided on the correct course of action. This has always been a finely balanced decision. We reviewed this in the light of this morning’s letter from GAT (The Group of Anaesthetists in Training). This letter asks that we ‘do what we can to stop the process’. We are therefore decided that we should no longer continue with the present round of interviewing for anaesthetics. We deeply regret taking this decision. We are very aware of the huge efforts that the candidates have undertaken, and the large amount of work that has gone into the process thus far. The Consultants involved in shortlisting have all worked long hours, often at weekends or during half term holidays, and have done their utmost to cooperate. It is our professional duty as shortlisters to make sure that the appointment process is carried out correctly and that all candidates are considered equally and fairly. There have been a series of serious procedural errors during the process. 90 applications were ‘lost’ from the original boxes, due either to a Deanery error or an MTAS ‘black-hole’. These were ‘horizontally scored’ but by different scorers. We were given varying amounts of the application form for different candidates; with some we were given their entire application form (with name and email address). At the shortlisting meeting we had no discussion around any of the candidates after the scores were collected. The divergence on individual scores range from 2 to 12 points. Most of us had 48 hours in which to carry out shortlisting of up to 650 applications. Some of our shortlisters were on annual leave, and their scoring was not done. Some of the (horizontally-marked) questions were scored by 2 people, some by only one. The "marking schedule" did not tally with the wording of some questions. Some of the scorers strictly followed the marking schedule for the ‘creative writing’ sections, others did not. We believe that there may have been other procedural errors with regard to the composition of the panel. We have not been able to confirm this, since the regulations governing this entire process – the “Golden Guide” – are still in draft and are still unpublished. We were not sure whether the lay chairman had had sight of these regulations. We would hope that many of these issues be addressed in Round 2. There are some areas of this appointments process that are especially unfair. One is that candidates who are offered their second, third or fourth choice are ineligible to apply for round 2, even if their circumstances have changed (eg by passing exams or satisfying specific eligibility criteria). We also feel that London has been unfairly treated, since our ‘Unit of Application’ extends from Brighton to Southend to Stevenage to Ealing. The huge population of this area, which also includes KSS and parts of the Eastern Deanery, has meant that the burden on the appointments panel has been too high. It would be easier if it could be divided. There has been a general recognition that round 1 of MTAS has been unfair and ineffective. Candidates appointed at round 1 may therefore fall foul of PMETBs generic requirements governing approval of run-through training programs.
Colin Beard – Deputy Regional Advisor
Wynne Davies – Program Director
Lila Dinner – Program Director
Ernie Grundy – Regional Advisor Head of School
Jane Lockie – Program Director
Richard Marks – Program Director
Regina Milaszkiewicz – Deputy Regional Advisor
Sue Mallett – College Tutor
Jane Robinson – Program Director
