BMJ  2007;335:802 (20 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.39360.727535.59

Observations

Response

Fiona Patterson replies to Parashkev Nachev

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

"Although there is over a century's literature on selection methodologies, rarely has any process provoked such fierce debate as MTAS. Many facts surrounding specialty selection, and our role within it, are not well understood. This is illustrated by Dr Nachev's personal view (BMJ 2007;335:615 doi: 10.1136/bmj.39342.515961.59), which contains two fundamental factual inaccuracies. The problems surrounding selection methodology are multi-faceted and multi-dimensional, well beyond disregarding CVs, relying on ‘white space' questions and poor IT delivery."

For the distress caused, I share the anger of the profession. The inquiry led by Sir John Tooke details the facts about our role in the process (www.mmcinquiry.org.uk). Here, I highlight critical issues to encourage close scrutiny of facts surrounding principles, methodology, and context underlying MTAS, so that there is learning for the future.

Clearly, in the past, selection practices in medicine have been effective. Although few would deny there is scope . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

MTAS or a tale of evidence heedless medicine

Parashkev Nachev
BMJ 2007 335: 615. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Whelan, P., Meerten, M., Rao, R., Jarrett, P., Muthukumaraswamy, A., Bhugra, D. (2008). Stress, lies and red tape: the views, success rates and stress levels of the MTAS cohort. JRSM 101: 313-318 [Abstract] [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Re: Editor's comments

Parashkev Nachev
bmj.com, 21 Oct 2007 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>