Journal of Surgical Education
Volume 67, Issue 2 , Pages 85-94, March 2010

Selection Matters—A Regional Survey of UK Consultant Opinion on Selection into Postgraduate Surgical and Medical Training

  • Sidhartha Sinha, MBBChir

      Affiliations

    • Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, London, United Kingdom
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Inquiries to Sidhartha Sinha, MBBChir, 27 Aylmer Road, London, N2 0BS, United Kingdom; fax: 0207 485 6506
  • ,
  • Abhishek Sinha, BSc

      Affiliations

    • St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust, Tooting, London, United Kingdom
  • ,
  • Shrestha Sinha, BSc

      Affiliations

    • James Paget University Hospital, Norfolk, United Kingdom
  • ,
  • Chetan Bhan, MBBS

      Affiliations

    • Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, London, United Kingdom
  • ,
  • Alex McConnachie, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
  • ,
  • Charles H. Knowles, FRCS

      Affiliations

    • Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, London, United Kingdom

published online 22 March 2010.

Background and Aims

Recent changes to postgraduate training in the United Kingdom have led to considerable debate regarding selection processes for specialist training (ST) positions. A survey of the opinion of a group of consultants on the relative importance of selection criteria for entry into the first year of specialist training (ST 1) was conducted.

Methods

An electronic questionnaire was sent to the e-mail addresses of all consultants at 4 hospitals in London with a request to rank order the importance of specific selection criteria when assessing (1) a candidate's suitability for entry into ST 1, (2) the fairest shortlisting mechanism, and (3) whether an interview should be a necessity for appointment.

Results

Of 657 consultants successfully contacted, 212 (32%) replied. Previous specialty-specific experience gained during foundation (intern-level) training was considered the most important criteria in assessing suitability for entry into ST 1 with additional research degrees second most important. A conventional curriculum vitae (CV) was considered the fairest way of shortlisting candidates, whereas a nationalized final undergraduate examination (Final MB) was least favored. Ninety-five percent of respondents felt that an interview was essential for appointment to ST 1.

Conclusions

Consultants place the most emphasis on previous specialty-specific experience and additional research degrees when considering selection for ST 1, bringing into question the generic nature of foundation training. Consultants preferred to maintain some subjective controls over purely objective markers in the selection process. Thus, there is little support for a nationalized ranked examination as a shortlisting tool, and an interview is recognized as essential for appointment to ST 1. There is a need to build on these preliminary findings by conducting further investigations before changes to selection methodology are implemented.

Key Words: career choice, general surgery, surgery, medicine, surgical career, medical career, survey

Competencies: Systems-Based Practice, Interpersonal and Communication Skills, Professionalism

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1931-7204(10)00019-X

doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2010.01.004

Journal of Surgical Education
Volume 67, Issue 2 , Pages 85-94, March 2010