Rapid Responses to:

NEWS: Lynn Eaton Tooke inquiry calls for major overhaul of specialist training BMJ 2007; 335: 737 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Re: Tooke report

D B Double   (12 October 2007)

Post-CCT "Specialist" !

Stuart H McClelland   (13 October 2007)

The GMC has to explain its role in the collapse of MMC/MTAS

A Lim   (15 October 2007)

The GMC must be held to account, why isn't it?

K Sundar   (15 October 2007)

Re: The GMC has to explain its role in the collapse of MMC/MTAS

William JM Holmes   (16 October 2007)

Mislead into coming to the UK

Balasingham G   (16 October 2007)

Re: Tooke report 12 October 2007
D B Double, Consultant Psychiatrist Nofolk & Waveney Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, Peddars Centre, Norwich NR6 5BE Send response to journal: Re: Re: Tooke report	Oh no, not another major overhaul of specialist training! Competing interests: None declared
Post-CCT "Specialist" ! 13 October 2007
Stuart H McClelland, SpR anaesthetics Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH Send response to journal: Re: Post-CCT "Specialist" !	Has no one else noticed that in recommendation 37 of the MMC report, in a diagram of the proposed structure of postgraduate training, after the award of CCT is a box titled "Specialist"? Before advancing to the "Consultant" box there is a further hurdle: "Optional higher specialist exams". Will this be the final step in our journey towards a post-CCT sub- consultant post? Competing interests: None declared
The GMC has to explain its role in the collapse of MMC/MTAS 15 October 2007
A Lim, Junior Doctor London Send response to journal: Re: The GMC has to explain its role in the collapse of MMC/MTAS	"....he singled out the fact that medical education is regulated at undergraduate level by the General Medical Council and at postgraduate level by the Postgraduate Medical Education Training Board. He says that the board's role should be taken over by the GMC." Surely you are joking. The GMC has yet to explain its substantial role in the collapse of the MMC and MTAS. The Tooke inquiry has correctly identified that many overseas doctors had competed and successfully gained training posts due to merit - and this has stirred unease, particularly when as this has been perceived to be at the expense of locally trained individuals. The solution seems now to be moving towards implementing discriminatory measures against non-EU doctors (as nothing can be done about EU applicants) many of whom have better language skills and training more akin to the UK/Commonwealth model. If there are too many non-EU doctors in the UK, why does the GMC continue to conduct overseas recruitment drives, increase the number of PLAB examinations per year and make the exams readily available in overseas centres. Why did it not take the rational approach and implement regulation at the point of entry rather than open the flood-gates only for unknowing OMGs and indeed, local candidates to be confronted with the calamitous consequences. How much revenue did the GMC amass through its registration drives? Please explain. Competing interests: None declared
The GMC must be held to account, why isn't it? 15 October 2007
K Sundar, SpR London Send response to journal: Re: The GMC must be held to account, why isn't it?	I agree with A Lim. The GMC is STILL opening the floodgates when there is already a glut of IMGs in this country. Continuing to run the PLAB is insane when there is a training crisis facing junior doctors. In the next 6 months alone, there are 5 examination dates for Part I in 14 countries and 5 part 2 sittings. When IMG do pass and arrive, what will they then discover - presumably that the rules will have altered to restrict applications for training posts. At £575 a pot for both parts, the GMC is raking it in. I feel it is about time the Tooke inquiry sat up and realised why we are in this mess in the first place and start its inquiry where the problem arose - the unregulated PLAB. Surely some semblence of workforce planning should be instituted! Competing interests: None declared
Re: The GMC has to explain its role in the collapse of MMC/MTAS 16 October 2007
William JM Holmes, FY2 Hairmyres hosptial, East Kilbride Send response to journal: Re: Re: The GMC has to explain its role in the collapse of MMC/MTAS	Perhaps it is the cost of conducting overseas excursions to find more recruits that forces the GMC to charge a yearly subscription of £290. Or maybe, judging from July/August edition of GMCtoday, it helps cover the cost of playing around with actors from the national theatre for the day. Accountability anyone? Competing interests: None declared
Mislead into coming to the UK 16 October 2007
Balasingham G, Unemployed Manchester Send response to journal: Re: Mislead into coming to the UK	I would like to clarify that the beef most IMGs have about the MTAS process is not that it had application restrictions based on nationality or residency status. I think most people woud accept that the reasons why priority was given to UK graduates was fair. Our concern is that IMGs are being mislead by the GMC. If there was already a surplus of IMGs, why in the world is sitting for PLAB becoming easier, not harder? There are 14 countries in which you can do the part I. Why isn't the GMC clearly outlining the employment situation in the UK on its website? Why is there no restricton as to the number of people being able to gain entry into the UK with "certification" but no jobs aka after spending thousands of pounds sitting for exams, plane tickets, accomodation etc. I would suggest that IMGs have a case at the employment tribunal, problem is we are a marginalised group without much of a voice. Competing interests: None declared