Patrick Plunkett said:
> FACEM and FAEM training are, on paper, very similar, but
there is a significant difference in that 5 years Higher Specialty Training is
mandatory under European rules, whereas FACEM only needs four years. (30
months in Emergency Departments and 18 months in other disciplines)
But most British trainees get 12 to 18 months of their higher
training lopped off at the outset, in recognition of SHO level experience prior
to their entry exam. This rather makes a mockery of Europe's 5 year higher
training, doesn't it?
Patrick Plunkett said:
> The comment on clinical evaluation in the FFAEM is noted,
and known, but surely it is for a robust RITA system to ensure that trainees are
up to scratch clinically before presenting for the exam? Only our
profession can adequately decide whether a person is acceptable, but they must
do so in a reproducible, transparent and fairf ashion. That makes clinical
exams, performed in a ½ to 1 hour setting totally unrealistic.
But the RITA system could not be considered robust for a
minute, it's a rubber stamping exercise! The RITA "assessment" is essentially
carried out by your trainer, although a panel then "assesses" the trainer's
assessment, if you see what I mean. There is a glaring conflict of interest - no
trainer wants to drag down his trainee, partly as trainers get close to their
trainees, and partly as trainees' shortcomings will inevitably reflect
on the trainer's unit and his training status. There's nothing wrong with
clinical exams if planned and executed well. We already rely on them for most
undergraduate and postgraduate exams; at least they are viewed as
relatively independent and that is more important than ever these days.
Conversely if you are going to use continuous assessment, then use
continuous assessment alone; an exam at the end should not be necessary and will
only devalue the continuous assessment!
Adrian Fogarty