Adrian - I agree, more than one CTR is pointless. I learnt so much from doing
my first one but totally resented doing the second!

The management aspect is, in my opinion, the most valuable aspect of the exam.
This is where we are streets ahead of colleagues in other specialties. Sure,
it doesn't 100% prepare you for the difficult stuff but I must admit that the
'management' aspect of the job has been a lot easier since starting my
consultancy because of the training and assessment in this area. And yes - I
have already had to deal with a) the press, b) disciplinary matters, c) PC
Plod coming to the reception desk and bullying the reception staff for patient
details!! All this and only 7 months into the job!!

EBM is still important however. Even more so when away from the Academic
Centres and when you don't have an SpR rotating out to you to keep you up to
date with modern stuff!

Regards

Andy

>===== Original Message From Accident and Emergency Academic List
<[log in to unmask]> =====
>>  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!
>
>Adrian

Totalise - the Users ISP
----------------------
To become a member and a shareholder - visit the site at
www.totalise.co.uk