RCoA Statement 04 April 07
From Mmc
Statement by the Review of Recruitment and Selection for Specialty and GP Training in England, 4 April 2007
Appended below is a statement produced late this afternoon by the MTAS Review Group (of which I am a member) and a letter sent today by the Group to all consultants in England. I want to reassure you that although I am a member of this group as a representative of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, that issues specific to Anaesthesia are being considered.
I would like to thank everyone who has worked so hard in short-listing, interviewing and counselling applicants in this process thus far and to ask for your continuing support for the extended round 1 described in the enclosure. I am convinced that this is now the only feasible way forward, although we have explored all the other options with the medical members of the review group and other Academy representatives, including abandoning the process altogether and negating the work done so far. I have explored options with many of you and I am very grateful for the reports I have received from the Regional Advisers.
May I apologise to those of you who have written to me expressing your views, frustration and anger and who have not had a personal reply. I or a member of staff have tried to reply to everyone but at times we have been overwhelmed; if you are in that number then please accept my apologies.
The Review Group is supportive of the separate solutions proposed in Scotland and Wales and the attached letter is addressed to consultants working in England. The magnitude of the problem in England is of so substantially a different order to that in the other nations that a different approach is required. I would emphasise that the principles on which this approach is based are the same across all four nations. Arriving at the proposed solution has been manifestly slower than anyone would have wished which has limited the available options. I would just say that at each stage of the process agreement has had to be reached with all Colleges, the BMA, Deans, Department of Health, Ministers and employers across all four nations, with legal advice.
There is still substantial work still to be done to ensure the fairest outcomes possible from this process and future selection rounds and to enable as much choice as possible. Some of you have criticised me and the other medical members for being part of this review, however solutions are required not only now but also for the future. In my judgement it is essential to continue to be part of the development of these solutions for the sake of medical training in general and for the maintenance of the standards we expect in anaesthesia.
Many of you have also criticised the College for its complicity in MTAS. This is not the case but I must repeat that unless we remain within the review process we are very unlikely to have any influence in the future on the aspects of MMC and selection into specialty training where we would wish to see change. There is no doubt that MMC, as it has developed, has become far less flexible than was the original intent; timing and methodology of the selection process has been predictably overwhelming; support for applicants and selectors has been very far from ideal because of the huge numbers involved and the service will suffer. Different specialties, as one would have expected, will have different selection needs and this must be recognised for the future.
It is these aspects of MMC and selection that I wish to try to influence for the sake of the standards of our profession. With your continued support I will make every effort to do that.
I thank you once again for your tireless efforts.
Judith Hulf President
