This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pulse june2020 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

GPs go forth

Hospital doctors to be given easier path to join general practice

Hospital doctors will be offered an easier route into general practice under proposals ratified by health education chiefs today.

The RCGP and Health Education England will develop a new programme that will support doctors qualified in other specialties to become GPs.

This will include recognition of existing competencies that could mean doctors with a previous specialty could have their training shortened after a 12 month performance review.

Under a series of recommendations announced today, struggling GP trainees will also be provided with more personalised training, while HEE and the RCGP will develop a programme to make it easier for overseas GPs to join UK general practice.

Many of these recommendations were first proposed last year, and HEE said it will take them forward subject to some amendments following an enthusiastic response.

The plans - part of the 'Targeted GP Training Programme' - are designed to smooth the passage of doctors from outside the profession, and trainees who have previously failed MRCGP exams. This comes after Pulse revealed the College might allow trainees a further attempt at the Clinical Skills Assessment of the MRCGP exam in future.

Under the proposals:

  • GP trainees who fail components of the MRCGP will be given more personalised training to take into include ‘specific interventions to address issues of differential attainment’;
  • HEE and the RCGP will work together to expand the 'transferable competences framework’ by autumn 2017, which will mean doctors who are trained in another specialty will be able to use their experience to shorten their length of GP training;
  • GP training will be extended by 12 months in the first instance for trainees who need extra support, bringing it in line with other specialties;
  • Non-EU overseas GPs who have been identified by the GMC as needing additional training to meet UK competencies will be able to have training in the NHS without having to enrol as a GP trainee – which was originally thought to be the only way to join the GP performers list without being fully qualified.

Professor Simon Gregory, director and dean of education and quality, Midlands and East said the proposals ‘offer a number of routes to support doctors to enter and successfully complete GP Training whilst maintaining the gold standard of MRCGP as exit criteria.’

‘In particular, this would help doctors who are progressing in training but not able to do so sufficiently in the time allowed.’

Dr Krishna Kasaraneni, BMA GP committee workforce lead, said:We are pleased that the review of evidence from HEE supports the BMA’s calls for personalised training.

‘There are a number of reasons why some trainees may fail their exams and the current system and time limits unfairly disadvantage some of the more diverse groups of doctors.’

Readers' comments (13)

  • errr seem to remember this is how it was in 1980s maybe even into the 1990s before the strait jacket of compulsory three year dedicated programmes- there is nothing new under the sun- either the three year programmes were a good idea or they weren't - which is it?- extra support and more personalised interventions are a good idea though.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So back to how things were when I trained - if you had done other jobs those were recognised and diy schemes were normal - ability to gain experience in other areas was also possible - unlike now

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Cobblers

    Don't they just reinvent the wheel and have the gall to trumpet it as an advance.

    I have a new idea. Do your own GP in hospital scheme according to your interests. There would, of course, be suggestions that Gen Med, Paediatrics possibly Obstetrics might be good things but the world's your whelk!!

    Then BIN the MRCGP. Invent, say, a Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice (JCPTGP) and on satisfactory completion of training award a nice certificate.

    Hey presto. You're a GP. (as it was in 1983)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Prepare for the stampede.......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think there a massive holes in junior Dr roots in hospital. the NHS is in free fall.The RCGP is the little dutch boy putting there fingers in a massive hole in the dyke trying to stop a total system failure.PATHETIC.Why did they change this system not long ago as reflected in the previous comments.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So the MTAS changes lasted 10 years only?
    What has happened to the architects of those 'modernisations' - running the NHS or drummed out of the system? I suspect the former.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Great... provided the rules are changed so that as a GP I can fast-track into being a brain surgeon. No? I need fuller training to be a brain surgeon? Really?
    Then why cut down the time needed to learn to be a GP -- probably the hardest job in medicine to do well?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ...which is exactly why newly qualified doctors should have the option to go straight into general practice and train there for 5 years........parity with specialist training the vast majority of who do no training in general practice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Medical Education is another out of control monster. It is now a huge international discipline all of its own spawning countless journals, conferences and over analysis of nonsense. It provides employment for vast numbers of bored professionals busily diversifying because they can't think of anything else to do (I am one of them). Doctors are by and large intelligent people and somewhere in the early 1990s they fell upon the field of education with gusto and got to work.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why can't they say " This is a policy based on expediency rather than on evidence or educational theory".
    If people spoke straight they would deserve respect.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say