Jun 2007
Update-Training Numbers
14/06/07 12:49 Filed in: INFO from
Trainee Reps
SAC June 2007
The main points of interest to trainees were as follows:
CCT
As you know, our recent trainees’ survey showed there are 59 NTN trainees due to obtain CCT in the next 4 years with additional numbers eligible to apply for consultant posts from Article 14 and the EU. The survey can be downloaded from here
.This information was sent to
the chair of the SAC in April and has now been
presented to their meeting. The number of
consultant posts becoming available during this
time is unknown although at present it seems
unlikely that there will be an equivalent number
of consultant posts. If this survey is accurate,
the SAC feel this is likely to be a significant
problem in the future. They will talk urgently
to BAPS about what can and should be done.
Addressing this issue now is important. We should aim to reduce the likelihood or number of people becoming unemployed post CCT. Such unemployment would clearly be a disaster for individuals, and result in people having to take sub-consultant jobs here or overseas. This in turn is likely to fragment us professionally, reduce our professional independence and therefore directly affect patients.
We need to make constructive suggestions. Some thoughts:
*We should think about future working patterns (as per Richard Lindley’s survey). Perhaps we should make active efforts to take on “General Surgery of Childhood” as the General Surgeons and Urologists who previously undertook this retire.
*We need to grasp thorny issue of future numbers of NTNs/ST posts. This is particularly difficult following the way MMC has been introduced. I guess that even those trainees who do get run through posts don’t want to be faced with the same difficulties 6 years down the line.
*We need to have a mechanism to keep track of the number of people in training. This will perhaps mean an annual survey of numbers. There may be training organisations that could and arguably should do this, but until this is in place we as trainees should perhaps take it on.
*I think it would be good to have an idea of the number of consultants planning to retire in the next 5 years. Although this does not necessarily equate to the numbers trust agree to replace, it will give us an idea.
*I think it would be ideal to have a neutral body identify exactly what should be the correct number of Paediatric Surgeons to provide the current service to the population, so we can have a target to aim for. At present, there are “aspirational” numbers provided I think by the SAC, but there is no requirement for individual trusts to make the suggested number of appointments. If a neutral body said X was the number required to provide a service, one could say, “if you want a full service, you support it”. Who would be the “neutral body”?
*We should support the consultants if they ask for proper recognition of time spent training us etc. Consultant numbers should accurately reflect clinical and non-clinical duties.
*If this does end up becoming a problem, we should think about what can be done to support colleagues who don’t get jobs. What have other specialties (Obs and Gynae, ENT etc) come up with in the past? What can we do to prevent people being stuck working for PCTs or ISTCs with the need to show high throughput at the expense of quality and training (or even operations that aren’t strictly indicated - circs for mild phimosis, UDTs for retractile foreskin, Umbilical Hernias at 2, Hydrocoeles at 6/12, contralateral explorations for herniae etc). This will put pressure on tertiary centres to show they can match throughput and will end up affecting all of us.
Richard and I are due to hand over the posts of trainee reps this year. Please could someone offer to take over? It would be a shame if there was a gap between reps.
There is likely to be more to be said about this subject by the SAC but I would be grateful for suggestions. In the meantime, thankyou once again to the consortium reps and individuals who helped collect this data.
CESR
CESR, the equivalent of CCT for trainees going through the article 14 route, is recognised in the UK but not in Europe.
Regulations
The new guide to training, the “Gold Guide”, will be published in the next few weeks. It will contain all the regulations for training and replaces the “Orange Guide”.
Registration with JCHST
Apparently all NTNs should register with JCHST when first appointed otherwise they may not be eligible for CCT. If you aren’t sure if you did this, it would be worth contacting the JCHST to check.
The main points of interest to trainees were as follows:
CCT
As you know, our recent trainees’ survey showed there are 59 NTN trainees due to obtain CCT in the next 4 years with additional numbers eligible to apply for consultant posts from Article 14 and the EU. The survey can be downloaded from here
.This information was sent to
the chair of the SAC in April and has now been
presented to their meeting. The number of
consultant posts becoming available during this
time is unknown although at present it seems
unlikely that there will be an equivalent number
of consultant posts. If this survey is accurate,
the SAC feel this is likely to be a significant
problem in the future. They will talk urgently
to BAPS about what can and should be done.
Addressing this issue now is important. We should aim to reduce the likelihood or number of people becoming unemployed post CCT. Such unemployment would clearly be a disaster for individuals, and result in people having to take sub-consultant jobs here or overseas. This in turn is likely to fragment us professionally, reduce our professional independence and therefore directly affect patients.
We need to make constructive suggestions. Some thoughts:
*We should think about future working patterns (as per Richard Lindley’s survey). Perhaps we should make active efforts to take on “General Surgery of Childhood” as the General Surgeons and Urologists who previously undertook this retire.
*We need to grasp thorny issue of future numbers of NTNs/ST posts. This is particularly difficult following the way MMC has been introduced. I guess that even those trainees who do get run through posts don’t want to be faced with the same difficulties 6 years down the line.
*We need to have a mechanism to keep track of the number of people in training. This will perhaps mean an annual survey of numbers. There may be training organisations that could and arguably should do this, but until this is in place we as trainees should perhaps take it on.
*I think it would be good to have an idea of the number of consultants planning to retire in the next 5 years. Although this does not necessarily equate to the numbers trust agree to replace, it will give us an idea.
*I think it would be ideal to have a neutral body identify exactly what should be the correct number of Paediatric Surgeons to provide the current service to the population, so we can have a target to aim for. At present, there are “aspirational” numbers provided I think by the SAC, but there is no requirement for individual trusts to make the suggested number of appointments. If a neutral body said X was the number required to provide a service, one could say, “if you want a full service, you support it”. Who would be the “neutral body”?
*We should support the consultants if they ask for proper recognition of time spent training us etc. Consultant numbers should accurately reflect clinical and non-clinical duties.
*If this does end up becoming a problem, we should think about what can be done to support colleagues who don’t get jobs. What have other specialties (Obs and Gynae, ENT etc) come up with in the past? What can we do to prevent people being stuck working for PCTs or ISTCs with the need to show high throughput at the expense of quality and training (or even operations that aren’t strictly indicated - circs for mild phimosis, UDTs for retractile foreskin, Umbilical Hernias at 2, Hydrocoeles at 6/12, contralateral explorations for herniae etc). This will put pressure on tertiary centres to show they can match throughput and will end up affecting all of us.
Richard and I are due to hand over the posts of trainee reps this year. Please could someone offer to take over? It would be a shame if there was a gap between reps.
There is likely to be more to be said about this subject by the SAC but I would be grateful for suggestions. In the meantime, thankyou once again to the consortium reps and individuals who helped collect this data.
CESR
CESR, the equivalent of CCT for trainees going through the article 14 route, is recognised in the UK but not in Europe.
Regulations
The new guide to training, the “Gold Guide”, will be published in the next few weeks. It will contain all the regulations for training and replaces the “Orange Guide”.
Registration with JCHST
Apparently all NTNs should register with JCHST when first appointed otherwise they may not be eligible for CCT. If you aren’t sure if you did this, it would be worth contacting the JCHST to check.