Thanks for the clarification

Simon

>Simon Carley wrote:
>
>> Rumour control suggests that there will be 8 training
lines for SHO's.
>
>The rumour is a rumour.
>There is a DoH working party on modernising the SHO
grade. Having been involved
>in the consultation which set up the working party this
is what I know.
> The contributors to that working party have each
submitted their own or their
>organisations proposals. Having done so some of the
members of the WP have been
>known to make presentations to meetings of their
ideas which may give the
>impression that their idea is the likely outcome.
>
>
>> None of these will be A+E. However, A+E will be a
component (4/12) of other
>> aspects of training.
>
>One of the ideas being developed does include core
SHO training programs perhaps
>numbering 7 or 8. None will be specialty specific apart
perhaps form General
>Practice (and even that might combine with GIM to
start with). SO there will not
>be an A&E SHO training program but neither will there
be an anaesthetic or ITU
>training program. One model combines these 3 at
SHO level as the critical care
>stem.
>
>
>> SHO's will be supernumary.
>>
>
>That is the one bit that the DoH representatives have
said will definitely NOT
>happen. The NHS could not afford it, SHO salaries
would have to drop so the BMA
>wont support it, and the educational value of the posts
would probably fall
>which is the direct opposite of what is intended.
>
>An important point is that the Working Party will
produce a report for
>CONSULTATION.
>
>> A+E will be staffed by nurse practitioners who will see
all minor end stuff
>> and most major end stuff (see previously discussed
document on out of hours
>> care)
>
>The future of A&E (or its abolition by the government if
it publishes the
>current "unscheduled care" proposals unchanged) is
not the subject of the SHO
>reforms working party . Remember the SHO reforms
will apply to all specialties.
>
>
>> plus non career grade doctors in personal
development posts.
>
>Do you mean Non Consultant Career Grade posts? The
opposite of career grade is
>training grade so non career grade posts are training
posts.
>
>> PDP's seem to be like staff grade posts but at SHO
rather than middle grade
>> level.
>
>As originally conceived the Staff Grade was intended to
be senior SHO level. The
>official entry qualification is 3 years post registration
and one year in a
>"relevant" specialty.
>
>Anyway, one version I heard goes something like this -
>
>PRHO one year.
>Optional one year SHO rotation for those who either
cant decide what SHO
>training program to apply for or who fail to be accepted
by a training program
>directly from House jobs. This might be what is
referred to as the Generic SHO
>training program. Sometimes called "taster" program.
It is likely to include A&E
>or General Practice or both in most rotations.
>Almost certain that not everyone will do one of these.
>
>Then fixed term SHO training program following one of
7 or 8 stems. Duration 2-4
>years depending on specialty. Entry directly from PRHO
or after optional one
>year "taster" rotation.
>At the end of the fixed term apply for SpR posts.
>If not passed the relevant exam, or judged by training
program directors to need
>more training in a certain area, or fail to be accepted
by chosen specialty then
>be placed in (not apply for) a further SHO post or
posts. This is the Personal
>Development Program as I understood it. Limited
length of time allowed to be
>spent in a PDP. If fail to progress then either apply for
a different SpR
>program, do a different SHO program leading to
another specialty group, or apply
>for a Staff Grade post. No option to continue to be an
SHO for ever.
>
>
>> There will be support from appropriately qualified
consultants (not
>> necessarilly A+E since there will be NHS directed
triage to speciality).
>
>Again that is from the unscheduled care/ abolition of
A&E proposals not the SHO
>reforms.
>
>> Competition for posts will be to get "proper" SHO
post and avoid getting
>> into PDP's
>
>Some will choose to do the generic one year SHO
posts some will want to go
>directly to a fixed term training program.
>The competition will be quite hot to go directly from
the end of an SHO program
>to an SpR post depending on the balance of numbers.
>
>> The light at the end of the tunnel (many of our
visions for the future of
>> A+E) is dimming
>
>Agreed but I don't think it is the SHO working party
report which is obscuring
>your view.
>
>> Having said all this, it is all rumour and may be
untrue.
>>
>
>Like I said at the start I have not been involved in the
SHO working party
>itself (but I know a few who are).
>
>Andrew Hobart
>
>