Correction to Fiona Patterson replies to Parashkev Nachev
We have been alerted to an error in this Observations article by Fiona Patterson, in which she responds to a personal view by Parashkev Nachev on the United Kingdom's new Medical Training and Applications Service (MTAS) (BMJ 2007;335:802, 20 Oct, doi: 10.1136/bmj.39360.727535.59). Mid-way through her article, Patterson referred to her company (Work Psychology Partnership) as having “won an open competition tender organised by the Department of Health” [to advise on selection methodology]. In fact, the invitation to tender was not advertised publicly, although it was a competitive process. In line with Department of Health procurement policy, a number of suppliers with experience in this area were invited to tender for this work, and two of these suppliers submitted a formal tender. Patterson was not aware of how many suppliers tendered for the contract at the time of writing this article.







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27