To think the BMA have misjudged with another doctor's strike? Thread 2

[Locutus2000]

Rolling this over as people still seem to have something to say but no new poll.

Original post

AIBU to think the BMA have misjudged with another doctor's strike?

Last year they got more than anyone else in the NHS along with an improved deal. Nurses and other AHPs received lower rises.

BMA have just announced another 'resident' doctor strike continuing to chase pay restoration to 2008 levels.

Having just had the major win with changes to IMG prioritisation and the clamp-down on PAs it feels a bit tone-deaf and I can't see Streeting going for it.

Evidence. Your beloved Oxford's WP criteria. Not all about money.

Newcastle have even wider criteria for Partners.

Sorry mumsneedwine and purple -you really are on the nasty comments today.
Where did I say they all popped back to say they got jobs.

However, good departments and good educational supervisors keep a track on what their trainees are doing and support guide and mentor. We are educational supervisors for the year for trainees who rotate through 3 specialities. With the current status - all my colleagues did all check and make sure everyone was doing something, offered help if did not, offered to review portfolios, guide and mentor. That is what a good colleague does.
So yes in my department we know what all 18 FY2s are off to do for the next year, like we did in 2024, 2023 2022 etc. Likewise all our Trust doctors on those god awful 6 month or 1 year contracts that are beneath British graduates and god forbid might be IMGS - we know what they are all doing.
Our foundation school keeps track and for those who either did not apply in the Trust or failed - departments were asked for opportunities - trust wide e mail!!!

you are so determined to paint consultants as out of date, not in touch with reality, arrogant and uncaring but you have not got a clue - what actually goes on in a hospital on a day to day basis. Mentoring in medicine obviously not your forte

I am sorry I should have been more precise for mumsneedwines pedantry:

61.11% for CT training - 11
11.11% Australia - 2
11.11% research/academia - 2
16.67% F3/Trust -3

I wrote references for 3 personally, gave advice to both for OZ, having been and done that gig myself, 1 research is in my department, the other research with another department in the Trust, CTs are varied medical, surgical and GP.

We do actually care

How arrogant that you assume I have no knowledge in this area. What you describe may be your reality but it is really naive if you to assume it is is the case everywhere.

I think you will find that not all clinical/educational supervisors are like what you describe. That is why deaneries have had to pull trainees and the GMC has got involved after concerning GMC survey results.

@stuffedpeppers but are you the ES for every trainee that comes through your department ? Do you keep track of them all every year ? I've never heard of anyone doing that before.
Not sure how I was nasty. Just said I thought it wasn't true. If you are ES or interested in every F2 then you are amazing and must have lots of interest in post F2 employment, so must see the issues they face v clearly ?
And I know many many consultants care v deeply, I work with them, helping students become doctors. But they are all painfully aware of the employment issues this year.

None of the deaneries I've been told of have asked their F2s what they are doing. A few have tried to make posts but there is no funding this year. Some have made it very difficult to join the bank if not already an F2 in that area, making moving back home hard. Maybe you could talk to your colleagues about how to do it better nationwide.

And thank you for the stats. As proved 'not more than 50%' didn't apply for training !

This is evidence which strongly supports what I said about a link to poverty. That is the overwhelming driver for widening participation. Almost all of the criteria link back to socio economic disadvantage.

I find it very, very hard to believe that you are involved in a meaningful way in widening participation mumsneedwine. But if you are, you may need to go back to grass roots and get your head around what its key purpose is.

And no not all - I never said all - but overwhelmingly this is about lifting clever but disadvantaged students out of poverty.

OMG -touchy aren't we!
Of course I know that not all are the same but your arrogant disdain or knowledge obviously comes from a dysfunctional department which does not provide the right educational, training environment for their trainees.

I said in my department we know what people are doing, that does not extrapolate to every department everywhere and I never said in every department- only you and mumsneedwine like hyperbole, I prefer facts.
My department got a kick in the balls about 10 yrs ago and lost alot of its FY trainees. Major rethink, resetting and structure put in - we have over the last few years recovered our numbers been asked to take more but actually declined because it is about quality not quantity.

What you also fail to realise are the limitations of the GMC survey - small department have one disgruntled trainee, who does not want to do that speciality and does not enjoy it, so writes bad comments will put you in the red on the GMC survey - irrelevant that the others were not having issues on the same rotation.

Not touchy ??? Was saying you're obviously doing a great job. But your level of help is unfortunately not normal. Maybe it should be.

mums - I am the educational lead for my department - so yes we do keep track every year.
i am not interested in every F2 -they have their own AES to do that - but I do check in that there are no issues / personality clashes and that times points are being met. We meet as a department 3 times per year to discuss residents of all levels and decide their feedback. Most of us e mail each other and ask of any issues before signing off aswell. This is good practice but not necessarily universal.
And deaneries have no control on who signs on the Trust Bank - it is never an easy process and does take peseverance. Sorry the deaneries you know are like that - our Postgraduate Dean sets a standard and expectations.

The GMC survey is a useful tool as it can give a voice to vulnerable doctors. Therefore I don't think you should be minimising it as a tool.

@Sevillian thought you'd gone ashore ? If you'd like to come see the work we do in WP you're v welcome.

I now work with several thousand kids a year and it's a great role. Yes, many are poor economically (my school is in one the poorest areas of the country but had awesome results so we are not on Bristol's WP list anymore), but many would not qualify for WP on family income.

Not sure what you mean by grassroots as WP was always about widening the cohort to new areas of society. We do a big project with one local community, most reasonably well off, but they traditionally don't send students (especially girls) to Uni. By working with community leaders we are changing that.

@stuffedpeppers wish all were like your department. Hopefully once the full figures come out in October we will see the evidence of how many F2s applied for training, how many got in (we know in some specialities it's over 50% IMG) and how many are currently without a job. Once the true figures are out there then hopefully more will be done. Although Wes has now acknowledged the issue.

Where did I minimise the GMC survey? Your extrapolation of a comment on limitations is getting ridiculous.

I respect what the GMC survey says but am very aware of its limitations - we swing from red, to pink to dark green on our induction on a yearly basis - not changed anything but each year people want something different! We can not change every single year -every year parts of each group want a different style of rota -we can not please everyone, so we make it compliant and keep it the same for consistency - some years it raises enough issues , others not. Two years ago we were exemplars for induction and asked to give advice to those who did badly, the next year we were in the red with no changes and those we had given advice to were asked to tell us what to do!

When we had 4 FY2s, 1 bad comment sends you under and the good comments get lost.

Not at all. So why did you only give a negative example of the GMC survey?

I spent three years as a director of postgraduate medical education and much longer as an educational supervisor and clinical supervisor, and my experience, at least wearing the first two hats, is entirely consistent with yours. As ever Mumsneedwine and Purplebricks are laughably oblivious to the fact that they have no experience of medicine.

Furthermore as @Sevillian indicates, they have not only tried to shout down people from inside the profession whose opinions may actually be worth hearing, they have failed to engage with peer reviewed evidence with unwavering consistency.

Otherwise, Mumsneedwine would not be confusing "Oxford makes you a better person" (which no one said) with "Oxford makes you a better doctor" (for which there is an evidence base); and she might also think twice about shovelling competitively sub-par candidates into a field with a tight mid-career bottleneck and then complaining endlessly about it.

@mumsneedwine and then there were three deja vous

I am ashore!

No thank you.

By grassroots I just meant that you need to go back to basics because you don't seem to understand the core purpose of widening participation. So much so that I don't find it credible that you're involved, except at the lightest of levels.

vu

🤣 autocorrect

Your posts would be more intelligible if autocorrect intervened more regularly, tbf.

Seconded.

'discribing' 'like what you describe' etc. Very hard for the man on the Clapham omnibus to penetrate.