> from: Cliff Reid
> subject: Re: emergency exams
> Some form of ongoing assessment - more
> objective and testing than RITA - would in my opinion be fairer than the
> all-or-nothing/heaven-hell approach.
I agree, RITA is rather pathetic, but hence the need for a robust and independent exam outside of this. I wouldn't want to lose our "exit exam" approach, but I agree it could be modified.
> Bear in mind my FFAEM was October 1999. The clinical part may well be
> tougher now, but it was embarassingly easy then.
> Speaking to the examiners after, it's clear they view the UK system with
> considerable bemusement.
This does concern me Cliff; our exam's obsession with EBM to the extent that it absorbs 50% of the exam, with another 25% given to management. Our specialty is in danger of producing a lot of academics who spend their times in offices or meetings. The latter are necessary for some of us some of the time, but we urgently need to nurture and develop more clinically based trainees for the future of our specialty.
> Are we concerned the trainers aren't competent to produce sufficiently
> trained candidates? If so, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yes, although when FFAEM began many examiners were finding their feet and still are! It wouldn't be too difficult expanding the clinical slant of our exam to, say, 50% and reducing the EBM bit to 25%. I would start by dropping one of the CTRs, it's pointless doing more than one! I would not object to keeping 25% management at the moment. There are many new trainees coming through now, like yourself and Simon, who could "pump-prime" a more clinical exam in the future (not forgetting some of us older guys who can still turn a hand in resus every now and then!).
> >Sorry, that was meant to go to Cliff only.
That's OK Simon, there's nothing wrong with indulging the rest of the List with personal stuff from time to time. It makes for a refreshing change from the joys of troponins etc!