Ethnic and sex bias in discretionary awards
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7391.671 (Published 29 March 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:671All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
So the Discretionary system is flawed? Tell me something I did not know. Whether it is sexual or racial discrimination, or the bias between small and large hospitals, in favour of acute specialities or whatever, there is no doubt reform is necessary. But on what basis does Raftery propose abolition?
First he indicates that Consultants are well paid, especially after work in the Private sector. This is simply not true. Comparisons with other non-public sector workers clearly demonstrate this. And on what vasis is Private work 'for the opposition' as Mr Milburn put it? Mostly these patients are treated in parallel to the NHS and are therefore not on NHS waiting lists. I thought Healthcare was a collaboration, not a competetion. And in any event, many colleagues have little or no Private practice - should they be penalised for meritorious work?
Surely what should be abolished is the competetive nature of discretionary points assessments. We are saddled with a system where a number of equally meritorious colleagues have to compete anually for a fixed number of points within an organisation. Inevitably subjectiveness and bias will enter such discussions. The only possible fair system is one which introduces objectivity - cross the hurdle, get the point - but this would mean recognising the outstanding meritorious service 'beyond the call of duty' of many more NHS consultants.
One of the features of the new Consultant contract was such an approach - sadly this was lost due to wooliness and lack of detail in other areas. However in the post-contract discussions it is surely time for this part of the agreement to be resurrected?
Finally, although BMJ editorials are occasionally written to be provocative, I would prefer our trade journal to be a little more supportive of its members. Heaven knows, the Government needs little provocation to come down on Doctors, and the editorial comments must have been music to Mr Milburn's ears; that is if he is listening at all.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Discretionary points and lack of incentive
I think when ever there is a lack of objective criteron biasis creep
in .As a very recent addition to the consultant body I am sometimes struck
by the general impression of DP's being some form of reward to the "good
boys".I hope there is some form of objectivity in the process and not as
is often darkly hinted a measure of reward and punishment.Incentives based
on work output may not be such a terrible idea from my observation
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests