MTAS fiasco: lessons for psychiatry

Abstract

AIMS AND METHODSThe recent Medical Training Application System (MTAS) has been fraught with problems. A survey of MTAS applicants from two London training schemes and a request for emails from trainees and trainers documenting problems with the system were undertaken with the aim of canvassing the views of candidates and shortlisters/interviewers about MTAS, and providing evidence of the system's failings.RESULTSA total of 101 candidates responded to the survey, and the first 92 emails sent to the Royal College of Psychiatrists were analysed. The majority of respondents (73%) were dissatisfied with MTAS and 63% thought the system unfair. UK and European Economic Area (EEA) applicants (71%) were more successful in being shortlisted than non-EEA candidates (48%). The majority of applicants (70%) planned to reapply in subsequent rounds if they failed to secure a training post.CLINICAL IMPLICATIONSBoth surveys showed clearly that the system was not working well. The trainees and trainers both felt that the system was flawed and that the reasons for the failure included a centralised system without any piloting, and the question design. In addition a lack of resources added to the stress and burden on both trainees and trainers.

Perception of Nursing Faculty Members on the Use of Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) To Evaluate Competencies

“…SPs and OSCEs have been used worldwide to assess the clinical skills and competencies of students and professionals in medicine and nursing [28,29], n this study those who agreed that prompts given by actors during the OSCE allowed students to compensate for missed tasks are 45 % (n= 9), those who disagree are 15% (n= 3) and those who were neutral were 40% (n= 8).…”

Stress, lies and red tape: the views, success rates and stress levels of the MTAS cohort

“…The demographic details of this sample were broadly similar to those in the original sample, and have been previously described. 2 The median age was 30 (range 25-49); 57% were men; 29% were born in the UK, 14% in the EEA and 57% outside of the EEA; and the trainees had on average 22 months training experience in psychiatry (range 6-58).…”

“…2 The survey was conducted during the application process and before the MMC Review Group decided that the short-listing process was seriously flawed and it was decided to give all applicants (who were in the UK and eligible to work in the UK) an interview with a deanery of their choice (i.e. between MTAS round 1a and 1b).…”

Readability analysis?

“…These are widely available, contained within word processing packages, and have been used to evaluate patient information leaflets in other specialties 1 and standard appointment letters in child and adolescent mental health services. 2 When these measures are applied to the College leaflets (Table 3 in the paper), the mean FRE is 7.81 (7.1-8.4) and mean FKGL 63.13 (58.7-69.8). This suggests the leaflets are readable as far as these computerised measures are concerned but their readability could be improved.…”