----- Original Message -----
From: "Fiona Wallace"
Subject: Re: Competency based assessment for SHO
> (Ignoring AF and happy to manage multiple threads. I cut my teeth on the
> trauma.org mailing list.)
Steady on Fiona! Besides, it's now well over 24 hours since my initial
protest so you're forgiven! Multiple threads are one thing, but mania is
quite another. This thread didn't get a response until lunchtime today, so I
rest my case, i.e. it should've been introduced this morning, not
immediately after Danny's new thread yesterday.
And speaking of "new thread overload" Phil Munro has just introduced yet
another fascinating subject which I don't have the energy to respond to now,
yet it also deserves a thorough debate. I sincerely hope the list will "file
it" and respond over the next day or two, but over the years I've seen many
"false starts" to threads that are lost because their introduction has been
timed badly (maybe trauma.org doesn't suffer from correspondent fatigue in
the same way Fiona). You see, my problem is, all of these topics are
fascinating and deserve our debate, it's just a bind when they all come
along at once. It's a bit like buses really, and at this rate we risk having
nothing left to debate by March!
Returning to your message Fiona, this subject is of course very interesting;
I believe we do have a really diverse bunch in our SHOs. While some are keen
to develop their surgical skills, others steadfastly ignore this aspect of
practice, and home in on medical aspects of emergency medicine (or A&E!). If
one was to attempt to define a common group of core competencies, they would
be very basic indeed, not much greater than one would expect from a JHO. I
always expect my SHOs however to exceed this level of competency in their
particular area of interest, so the idea of core competency is rather
redundant; it might amount to little more than the ability to take a history
or to insert a cannula, and I expect individual SHOs to exceed this by far,
but each in their individual areas of interest.
I had a fascinating day involved with standard-setting at the GMC the other
day, but this was dealing with "minimal competence" of career grades, i.e.
consultants and staff grades. I did want to share my experience with the
list but I suspect I'm not allowed to divulge details (at least not without
big Ed's permission), and besides, I was waiting for the right time to
introduce a new thread! But the one thing I did learn was that EMQs are far
superior to MCQs when it comes to testing knowledge. But I presume the
educationalists on the list already knew this...
Regards
Adrian Fogarty
P.S. I see in the last 10 minutes the SIGN thread has suddenly taken off.
Good...it's a subject close to my heart. Hell, I may even join in, for a
change...
|