Talk:Modernising Medical Careers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconNational Health Service Unassessed (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject National Health Service, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National Health ServiceWikipedia:WikiProject National Health ServiceTemplate:WikiProject National Health ServiceNational Health Service articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Behind the times?[edit]

We seem to be missing up to date info, including core trainee roles and potential "junior consultant" roles. Is this the right place for this detail?


Unfinished Business[edit]

This started with the Chief Medical Officer's report "Unfinished Business" in 2004. Some relevant content is already on senior house officer. JFW | T@lk 10:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DNUK survey[edit]

I have amended this page to remove the bit about the DNUK survey. The survey asked people whether they thought the changes that MMC had introduced had led already to a decline in patient safety. This was clearly nonsensical because we are presently only partway through the first F1 year, and the F1 year is virtually identical to the old PRHO year, so there is no way the reforms COULD have had any change either way to patient safety, and certainly nothing detectable yet by GPs in the community! Conflict of interest: I was interviewed by Hospital Doctor magazine about this very survey when it came out a few weeks ago, and I gave them the same opinion, which they published.

I put in something else to support the true statement at the start of that paragraph that the reforms are not fully supported by the medical profession. Conflict of interest: I am deputy chair of the Junior Doctors Committee at the BMA, which is one reason I know we're not happy with MMC! - Tom Tdolphin 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careers consultancy[edit]

I have reverted an external link I thought was advertising a commercial website (in retrospect it was harsh to fully revert without explanation, considering he is a newcomer). He claimed it advertised free services, although I was unable to find anything for free except links to news articles/updates, other similar commercial careers services, therefore I don't think it is a suitable link for wikipedia (although definitely a useful resource for junior doctors). Would appreciate further discussion over whether the link is suitable.sebzeppelin 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page, my talk page.... it's not clear is it? Seeing as we're discussing a particular article I think it's best to continue that discussion on that article's talk page (have pasted this post on my page, both your pages, and the MMC talk page).

Ah, now I see the article(s) in your blog pointing it out. Genuinely sorry I didn't look more thoroughly! A link to that blog would be good in the short term, but it wouldn't be so 'in your face' obvious as soon as you post a new article in your blog. If you somehow incorporate an ad for free MMC advice on your front page I could reinsert the link to your front page, and it would also be obvious to those who come across this site by other means.

Let me know which of those options you'd prefer, and I'll put up the relevant link. Alternatively you may have another suggestion, in which case please let me know. Regards, sebzeppelin 00:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your efforts and openness. I genuinely feel that the link is useful, and this service is truly free. I have now put a "Free Advice" link on my home page, and there is at the moment also a popup to bring this to people's attention. The best solution, as you suggest, would be to put the link back as I put it originally. If you would do that, that would be great. Otherwise contact me through my talk page and I'll do it. Best wishes. Tony Woolfson 10:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done!sebzeppelin 11:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hopefully, we will get responses from this and we will be able to help. I am also in contact with MMC directly - this is a very difficult time for a lot of doctors, and I'm sure that any assistance will be appreciated. Regards, Tony Woolfson 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths[edit]

Incorrectly states that all posts are 4 months in the foundation programme. Some are three, some are six, some are 8 and I think some are two.

Regurgitation of DOH spin[edit]

This article should not contain the DOH's spin. Apart from a blatant copyvio, it is also a lie. COI: affected by this ****. JFW | T@lk 12:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

It seems to me that this has a significant bias against MMC/MTAS. Eg. Issue and response from DoH seems to be derogatory. I'll attempt to re-write and re-work the entire article to create a more balanced article. --Murphyen 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be interested to see someone in the medical world not appear to be 'biased against' MMC Scottishphil 17:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted the picture of a lottery machine. It's been reverted before already! I know there are strong emotions on this issue but wikipedia isnt meant for cheap jibes whatever the issue Truthmonkey 18:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree MMC/MTAS is a lame-ass scheme, however Wikipedia as Truthmonkey says, is not a place for the discussion of its crappyness. Instead neutrality should be the order of the day. --Murphyen 16:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the MMC Q&A on this article - it does not achieve the aims of sharing knowledge and is effectively a Department of Health propaganda statement. It is conceivable that such information could be relevant to this wikipedia article but at most it would warrant a link, not a wholesale cut and paste. NN
  • I can see why you've removed the QandA, however if you look at the edit history the questions were placed first and then answered by a different party. That said Wikipedia main pages arent a discussion - which would inevitably be far too subjective Truthmonkey 09:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need no Q&A. We need the historical background of MMC, its implementation and the many views that have emerged after the spectacular failure (little doubt about that) in round 1. The Review Panel needs to be mentioned. The resignation of Alex Liakos and Shelley Heard needs to be added. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to increase the neutrality and have removed some of the more opinion-based links - blog and comments page criticisms of MMC are everywhere and of dubious value to this article if there are more neutral sources available. However, Scottishphil's not wrong - a positive, or even neutral, opinion on MMC/MTAS is pretty hard to come by. Conflict of interest: hospital administrator under the cosh from all sides! Tobelia 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any outstanding bits in the article which are specifically tagged there or noted here as POV, I've removed the tag for the moment. Nmg20 (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Liacos to Donaldson[edit]

This is the medical student member of the MMC team in his resignation letter to Liam Donaldson. He was followed by Alan Crockard and now Shelley Heard. This article needs to mention that the team members are resigning one by one. JFW | T@lk 23:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section on Alex Liakos's resignation - the increasing list of resignations should make that point. Tobelia 11:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMC versus MTAS[edit]

At the moment, particularly in the criticisms, this article doesn't make the distinction clear enough between the overall MMC training system, and the mismanaged transition to that system using the MTAS application process. Although many people have issues with both, MTAS and the transition process are overwhelmingly what the recent criticisms have been about - both Prof Crockard and Prof Heard's resignations have damningly criticised MTAS but supported the principles of MMC - and I think the distinction needs to be a lot clearer. Tobelia 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the thrust of this, although my take would be that MMC has largely escaped criticism it may in fact deserve thanks to the horrors of MTAS! There's some fascinating stuff in the Tooke Report and elsewhere about the changes in MMC from what it initially set out to be to what was actually implemented - when I have time I will try to add these!
On a related note, I hope my reorganisation of the article will help sort these out - to my mind MTAS should be part of a timeline of the implementation of MMC here, with the majority of criticism of that coming under its own article. The MMC question is now the more serious one, as it is what we are left with, and this page should outline the major differences it has put in place across all levels of medical training and not simply the overtly disastrous ones to specialist training appointment.
I've added some requests for citation, because there are claims which need verification in there, and I think we should be much, much more ruthless about requiring them. Nmg20 (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Modernising Medical Careers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Modernising Medical Careers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Modernising Medical Careers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent changes?[edit]

Now there are Core Surgical Training CST and Internal Medical Training IMT positions parallel to ST1 and ST2 and possibly more, should there be an update? 2A00:23C6:1492:7A01:A586:43DD:3DEA:4CB5 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modernising_Medical_Careers&oldid=1220598700"