Junior Doctors' Pay Claim Poll

[Vanden Saab]

borcy said:

Vanden Saab said:

borcy said:

Used to work well, did it? Were there any winners and losers?

As the previous system was based on exam results and the entrance test I guess the losers now are those patients who now get a lower quality doctor in areas where high proficiency is needed.

I'm sure there must be some sort of posting system to move trainee drs about that works.

It seems to be internal to the nhs as in organised by them. Which if its so bad is odd.

https://foundationprogramme.nhs.uk/

[chemistry]

oddman said:

I can't imagine the nightmare of being a trainee these days with the advent of PAs

Being paid less than PAs; having them muscle in on your educational opportunities but ultimately having them hanging off you like parasites when they want to 'check something out'.

That your daughter has already twigged onto this in her third year, a time when when her medical school life should be a blend of enthusiasm and intoxication, is depressing.

Indeed; she's doings placements in various hospitals etc. and the concerns about PAs are discussed quite a bit by medics and students alike (particularly I suspect, given the pay dispute).

Adding to that, along with many of her fellow students she's planning to head to Australia for her year-five elective, where no doubt she'll see a world of far greater opportunity...it's almost crazy to me that the medical schools do this, it's almost like they want people to leave the UK. Similarly, there have already been overtures from representatives of Australia to the current students, via various presentations, booths, etc. I'm sure Australia isn't perfect, but when it's presented to young medics as offering a better lifestyle, more money, less stress etc. it's clearly very tempting...add in a crazy foundation system, a threat from PA's taking some of your job (without the responsibility and for more money) and the general dire state of the NHS and it's no wonder we can't keep people here.

Bonkers.

[ClaphamGT3]

I went for 1-4% which is where many qualified professions are placing their pay awards at the moment.

I would suggest to the GMC that they introduce a compulsory economics module to the 1st year BMed syllabus

[borcy]

Vanden Saab said:

borcy said:

Vanden Saab said:

borcy said:

Used to work well, did it? Were there any winners and losers?

As the previous system was based on exam results and the entrance test I guess the losers now are those patients who now get a lower quality doctor in areas where high proficiency is needed.

I'm sure there must be some sort of posting system to move trainee drs about that works.

It seems to be internal to the nhs as in organised by them. Which if its so bad is odd.

https://foundationprogramme.nhs.uk/

Seems more got where they wanted to go. Perhaps not that bad a system.

[djc206]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I went for 1-4% which is where many qualified professions are placing their pay awards at the moment.

I would suggest to the GMC that they introduce a compulsory economics module to the 1st year BMed syllabus

How has qualified professional pay held up against inflation over the past decade? Mine has ever so slightly exceeded inflation.

[Vanden Saab]

borcy said:

Vanden Saab said:

borcy said:

Vanden Saab said:

borcy said:

Used to work well, did it? Were there any winners and losers?

As the previous system was based on exam results and the entrance test I guess the losers now are those patients who now get a lower quality doctor in areas where high proficiency is needed.

I'm sure there must be some sort of posting system to move trainee drs about that works.

It seems to be internal to the nhs as in organised by them. Which if its so bad is odd.

https://foundationprogramme.nhs.uk/

Seems more got where they wanted to go. Perhaps not that bad a system.

A few percent more got their first choice but less got their second, third, forth and so on.
The question then becomes is it better because 4% more got their first choice or worse because the remaining 18% had to accept a choice lower than last year. So for example if you would have got your second choice last year it would have been your third choice this year right down to your 10th choice.
Overall around 18% got at least a choice lower than last year compared to 4% extra who got their first choice. That does not seem fairer to me unless you are in the first choice group.
Edited to add.
You then have to take into account that previously almost all of the best students would get their first choice whereas now there will be many more getting their 4th, 5th or even lower choice. You can understand why many of them might go elsewhere.

Edited by Vanden Saab on Monday 6th May 12:12

[Digga]

djc206 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

I went for 1-4% which is where many qualified professions are placing their pay awards at the moment.

I would suggest to the GMC that they introduce a compulsory economics module to the 1st year BMed syllabus

How has qualified professional pay held up against inflation over the past decade? Mine has ever so slightly exceeded inflation.

Remind me when the NHS last;

1. went bust
2. got taken over
3. closed workplaces
4. announced mass’s redundancies

[Oliver Hardy]

My mother's friend's daughter qualified as a doctor in the late 70s/early 80s, found placements difficult in the UK and ended up working in UAE as a paediatrician.

What is a PA?

[djc206]

Digga said:

djc206 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

I went for 1-4% which is where many qualified professions are placing their pay awards at the moment.

I would suggest to the GMC that they introduce a compulsory economics module to the 1st year BMed syllabus

How has qualified professional pay held up against inflation over the past decade? Mine has ever so slightly exceeded inflation.

Remind me when the NHS last;

1. went bust
2. got taken over
3. closed workplaces
4. announced mass’s redundancies

Thank you for not answering my question.

Job security does not excuse pay erosion in my world.

You might want to google the third one. Happens all the time, sometimes involving redundancy.

[Electro1980]

Oliver Hardy said:

My mother's friend's daughter qualified as a doctor in the late 70s/early 80s, found placements difficult in the UK and ended up working in UAE as a paediatrician.

What is a PA?

Physician associate.

[Dixy]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I
I would suggest to the GMC that they introduce a compulsory economics module to the 1st year BMed syllabus

Yes they could learn when demand is greater than supply the cost goes up. Waiting lists anyone.

[ClaphamGT3]

Dixy said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

I
I would suggest to the GMC that they introduce a compulsory economics module to the 1st year BMed syllabus

Yes they could learn when demand is greater than supply the cost goes up. Waiting lists anyone.

Only if the consumer has a willingness and ability to pay

[Oliver Hardy]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Dixy said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

I
I would suggest to the GMC that they introduce a compulsory economics module to the 1st year BMed syllabus

Yes they could learn when demand is greater than supply the cost goes up. Waiting lists anyone.

Only if the consumer has a willingness and ability to pay

If they don't they go without.

[chemistry]

Electro1980 said:

Physician associate.

Crudely, PAs are to doctors as PCSO are to police officers; essentially a cheaper*, less well trained version that looks superficially similar to the public:

https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/med...

Their use is somewhat controversial: https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre/bma-calls-...


(*Although in the case of junior doctors, PA's earn more.)

Edited by chemistry on Monday 6th May 14:19

[Dixy]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Only if the consumer has a willingness and ability to pay

That only works when there is only one consumer, fortunately for the JDs this is a global market, some countrys value their health car enough to pay for the best.
And some people with real understanding of economics understand there are times when spending more money now is less expensive in the long run.

Edited by Dixy on Monday 6th May 15:55

[JagLover]

chemistry said:

(*Although in the case of junior doctors, PA's earn more.)

For a maximum of three years I would have thought. As PAs start in Band 6 or Band 7

https://www.nhsbands.co.uk/

https://www.bma.org.uk/pay-and-contracts/pay/junio...

[dmsims]

Vanden Saab said:

Dr Mike Masding
Dr Tom Lawson
Prof Clare McKenzie
Dr Tony Choules

These people were responsible for this nonsense (effectively don't bother working hard because you are all equal)

"Re: Removal of Educational Achievements (EA) Score from Foundation Programme Allocation Process
The UKFPO has received extensive correspondence following the announcement of our intention to remove
the educational achievement (EA) score from the Foundation Programme allocation process from 2023. We
are grateful for all feedback received. We acknowledge the position of the Medical Schools Council (MSC), the
British Medical Association (BMA) and those individuals opposed to this decision. We have also received
positive feedback in support of the decision, including from medical students expressing their relief that this
issue is being addressed. They have shared personal stories, highlighting their frustrations and ongoing
challenges to succeed in what they still see as a very uneven playing field. We are grateful to them for their
courage in coming forward and sharing their powerful stories with us.

In their statement, the MSC have referred to the work that UK medical schools are undertaking to support
widening access to medicine and enabling students from less fortunate backgrounds to undertake additional
qualifications. This is to be commended and we recognise the excellent progress being made in this area. The
UKFPO does not however believe that removing the EA score from the foundation allocation process in 2023
adversely impacts on these individuals or this programme of work.

The UKFPO recognises the value of additional educational achievements to individuals whatever their
background and whenever in their career they achieve them. We do not, however, believe that the primary
motive for seeking out such educational opportunities during undergraduate studies should be the acquisition
of points for the foundation allocation process.

Despite considerable progress, there are still many students who cannot afford to consider an additional
qualification during their undergraduate years even when additional support is made available - we have heard
from a number of such students since announcing this change. The complexity is further increased by the
variation between Universities in providing additional degrees that are integrated into the medical school
course, and also by the fact that graduate entry students begin their medical course with a previous degree
which has led to points being awarded for EAs.

The UKFPO has considered all feedback during the extended period of discussion with stakeholders, including
the MSC and BMA, leading up to this decision and subsequent to its announcement.

We cannot support the continuation of a process where there is ongoing inequity even if that is for a min ority of
individuals and the decision to remove the EA score from the allocation process in 2023 will therefore remain"

[Vanden Saab]

dmsims said:

Vanden Saab said:

Dr Mike Masding
Dr Tom Lawson
Prof Clare McKenzie
Dr Tony Choules

These people were responsible for this nonsense (effectively don't bother working hard because you are all equal)

"Re: Removal of Educational Achievements (EA) Score from Foundation Programme Allocation Process
The UKFPO has received extensive correspondence following the announcement of our intention to remove
the educational achievement (EA) score from the Foundation Programme allocation process from 2023. We
are grateful for all feedback received. We acknowledge the position of the Medical Schools Council (MSC), the
British Medical Association (BMA) and those individuals opposed to this decision. We have also received
positive feedback in support of the decision, including from medical students expressing their relief that this
issue is being addressed. They have shared personal stories, highlighting their frustrations and ongoing
challenges to succeed in what they still see as a very uneven playing field. We are grateful to them for their
courage in coming forward and sharing their powerful stories with us.

In their statement, the MSC have referred to the work that UK medical schools are undertaking to support
widening access to medicine and enabling students from less fortunate backgrounds to undertake additional
qualifications. This is to be commended and we recognise the excellent progress being made in this area. The
UKFPO does not however believe that removing the EA score from the foundation allocation process in 2023
adversely impacts on these individuals or this programme of work.

The UKFPO recognises the value of additional educational achievements to individuals whatever their
background and whenever in their career they achieve them. We do not, however, believe that the primary
motive for seeking out such educational opportunities during undergraduate studies should be the acquisition
of points for the foundation allocation process.

Despite considerable progress, there are still many students who cannot afford to consider an additional
qualification during their undergraduate years even when additional support is made available - we have heard
from a number of such students since announcing this change. The complexity is further increased by the
variation between Universities in providing additional degrees that are integrated into the medical school
course, and also by the fact that graduate entry students begin their medical course with a previous degree
which has led to points being awarded for EAs.

The UKFPO has considered all feedback during the extended period of discussion with stakeholders, including
the MSC and BMA, leading up to this decision and subsequent to its announcement.

We cannot support the continuation of a process where there is ongoing inequity even if that is for a min ority of
individuals and the decision to remove the EA score from the allocation process in 2023 will therefore remain"

Heading for a new dark ages, what did capitalism ever do for us...

[loafer123]

More lowest common denominator politics.

[Digga]

djc206 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

I went for 1-4% which is where many qualified professions are placing their pay awards at the moment.

I would suggest to the GMC that they introduce a compulsory economics module to the 1st year BMed syllabus

How has qualified professional pay held up against inflation over the past decade? Mine has ever so slightly exceeded inflation.

Remind me when the NHS last;

1. went bust
2. got taken over
3. closed workplaces
4. announced mass’s redundancies