More information about text formats
I am an SHO in the 'old' system. I believe the MMC has certain advantages but I have some serious concerns as well.
The maintenance of a personal portfolio and more time and attention from the educational supervisors sounds quite good.
The concerns are:
1. The training period for acquiring the generic skills varies from person to person. The move from time- based to competency-bas...
1. The training period for acquiring the generic skills varies from person to person. The move from time- based to competency-based training resulting in the curtailing of SHO training raises serious concerns.
2. Considering a particular speciality, for example medicine, six months gives more time to enjoy the specialty, learn the basics, acquire specific
skills and finally decide which specialty to pursue for further training.
3. With the old SHOs undergoing a transition now, the competition is unfair because SHOs with one year's experience are competing with those with 2.5-3 years' experience at the ST2 level.
4. F2 trainees have protected teaching times which range from half a day up to a full day which will compromise the quality of the patient care. Doctors should have protected teaching times, but ward work and
patient care should not be compromised at any cost because that is the difference between a medical student and a PRHO or an SHO.
5. The role of membership exams is still not very clear.