Medical Apprenticeships. Explain it to me like I’m 5.

[W0tnow]

…because I don’t understand. According to this article, these apprentices will achieve a medical degree after 5 years of on the job training and academic study.

But the traditional route involves 5-6 years of study, (including supervised patient contact, but mostly study) and is, by all accounts, incredibly intense. How can you attend medical school, work in a hospital as an apprentice doctor, from day 1, and achieve the same qualifications in the same amount of time? How is that possible? Who is going to be supervising/ training these apprentices? The same staff who currently train first year doctors?

If I understand this correctly, (and I’m sure I don’t) the only difference between the two qualifications, is that one comes with a massive debt.

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2023/06/30/nhs-doctor-apprenticeships-everything-you-need-to-know/

Well a) that would take staff away from other roles and b) bring a great oncology nurse has almost nothing to do with being a good oncologist - nursing and medicine involve very different training.

I’m guessing this will be a sort of B stream, and the people doing it will end up being Trust Doctors (is that what they used to call Hospt doctors who didn’t go onto the consultant track??) and mostly non-partner GPS.

I don’t think this is intrinsically appalling… but you wonder if the results will be. It’s a much smaller thing but my GP practice has got a couple of physician associates in the last couple years, and I think that works fine for more minor stuff. But my elderly FIL who has complex medical needs struggles with the lack of F2F GP time.

It actually sounds quite like the graduate medicine degrees that are available, they are usually shorter than undergraduate med degrees and often involve being on wards from the start.

They learn about the jobs they are going to do. Nurses learn about patient care, they are not trained to diagnose. If you looked at medical and nursing courses you will see that they are extremely different.

ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THIS TO BE THE CASE IN THE TIMEFRAME AND WITH THE LACK OF RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THEM.

Regardless, that's the structure. If fail rates are through the roof then the provider will lose its registration to offer apprenticeships, or someone will rethink the timeframe.

In either case, the degree they take, the exams they sit will be identical to those taken by non-apprentice med students.

If you have an objection to the notion of medicine apprenticeships then it can't be based on lack of parity given they'll be doing the same degree and same exams and subject to same quality arrangements.

And as a precious poster pointed out - grad entry medicine is only four years. Do we have any major objection to this? Is there any evidence that doctors who qualify through this route don't know their metaphorical arses from elbows?

If I was going to provide degree apprenticeships in medicine, I'd be using the existing 4 year route as a model. Which given that it'll only be available to those with clinical experience, who are judged academically capable, doesn't seem problematic to me.

There's a whole heap of stuff wrong with apprenticeships - but the rigour of the academic requirement isn't one of them.

To get onto the 4 year grad entry course you need a degree in a science- someone with this background can complete it in 4 years as they'll already have a lot of the building blocks to an appropriate level. How is that the same as an 18 year old leaving school of whom the government said they are targeting? Its not an equal comparison.

No one has an answer for this, they won't work is the likely answer. If the government were truly committed to widening access then they'd subsidise the student fees for those doing the degree- even if it came with a return of service like healthcare courses do in Wales.

To get onto the 4 year grad entry course you need a degree in a science- someone with this background can complete it in 4 years as they'll already have a lot of the building blocks to an appropriate level. How is that the same as an 18 year old leaving school of whom the government said they are targeting? Its not an equal comparison.

Ffs read what I (and others) have written. ITS NOT FOR 18 YEAR OLDS. ITS FOR EXISTING CLINICAL STAFF.

The Gov is not targetting 18 year olds for medicine degree apprenticeships. They are doubling the number of places on the normal route medicine degrees. Which will cause many many issues but for other reasons.

A lot of Grad entry courses accept non science degrees.

It's not, it's an alternative to doing the university degree. It says all throughout the workforce plan- unless you can link anywhere where it says this is for existing staff?

There were golden handshakes etc in Wales for dentistry. The problem being once the dentists qualified there were not enough compulsory one year training posts and those who finished post graduate training found there were no posts in NHS practice for them to go to , so they ended up in England.

All of us old farts who are the ones who used to do the training are now retiring , worn out early and often in ill health. Most gps in our area are over 50 as are most dental practice owners.
So we go back to who is going to train all of these people? Conditions and pay are not radically changing and I would argue the present cohort of medics , in many cases, are not getting the training they should have at the moment.

@titchy This is from the link in the OP:

"People who apply for the Medical Doctor Apprenticeship will be expected to have similar academic qualifications to those who apply for medical school.
There will also be options for graduates with non-medical degrees."

That's not what the government are saying https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2023/06/30/nhs-doctor-apprenticeships-everything-you-need-to-know/

I've never met a colleague who came via the grad degree who didn't have a science degree, they're highly competitive as I'm sure you know and although I can well imagine a few will have got a place with a humanities degree I'd bet that's supported by extensive experience or volunteering in a related role. Either way it's still not comparable to school leavers of whom will be eligible for the apprentiship despite some posters saying otherwise for some reason.

@titchy Number one: why are you shouting at me?

Number two: If it was "THE EXACT SAME DEGREE, SAME EXAMS, SAME EVERYTHING!!!!" then it would be a medical degree (i.e. an MBBS, MBBCh or whatever it is termed at the specific medical school). Why then a different name?

They will have the same medical degree at the end:

They will be required to attend medical school, complete an accredited medical degree like all other trainee doctors, and meet all other criteria to qualify as a doctor as set out by the General Medical Council

Yes of course. All degree apprenticeship providers set their entry standards, same as for all their non apprentice degrees.

My Trust started training apprentice radiographers 2 years ago. The 2 were drawn from our B3 HCAs. Neither had A levels.

It isn't going well. They have 3x3 WEEKS at uni per year. They are expected to learn more or less everything from the radiographers; many of whom, with 3rd world qualifications, barely understand what they're doing themselves. The students 'Why?' - Is met with a shrug.

I couldn't teach MRI physics to degree standard myself.

There is no way they're going to have the depth and breadth of knowledge the Uni trained degree students have.

Because no one is acknowledging that they'll get the same degree and be subject to the same academic standards.

Read the apprenticeship standard I linked to - they'll get an MBBS, same as all successful med students. There is absolutely no suggestion of dumbing down or them not getting the usual qualification.

My point was the "also" in the last line. The new Apprenticeship scheme isn't an extension of the Graduate Entry.

Then the two you have should be failing their degrees. I assume they are? Or that they're having to repeat?

OK, I see, I think I did not really understand. So you do get the same degree from the university (MBBCh etc), and unless someone has seen your CV you would be indistinguishable for a doctor who has done the full course? Alright then. Still seems a very very bad idea to me. But maybe I am stuck in the mud.

Are they going to start shortening the specialist training programmes as well?

If it is believed possible to get an MBBCh etc in a year or two less than before (which I do not believe myself), why even bother with the longer courses? Why would anyone do them?

I really think you are going to find UK doctors less acceptable to other countries. And does the GMC really think this course-shortening is acceptable? And what do the universities think, are they really prepared to dole out degrees to people who have not completed the current course requirements?

The med apprenticeship is five years long.

Apparently a previous poster says the five years for all med degrees is to ensure parity globally, which makes sense. (That doesn't detract from grad entry which just offers a direct route into year 2 - the whole programme is still a five year degree regardless of an individual's exemptions from part of it.)

There is precedent for shortened medical degrees.

during wars for example I believe accelerated programmes were developed and the courses shortened to 3 years.