ARCPs and the reason we lose surgical trainees
I've been thinking about this subject for some time, and trying to formulate a cogent and non-angry opinion on the system.
Sadly I have been prevented from doing so on so many occasions by frankly ridiculous and perplexingly bad actions and assessments from deaneries.
Then finally we come to out annual review. Where in most industries we would be treated as adults and human beings. We instead are left without information or any idea what the problem was for 2.5 hours. I left 3 hours after my time slot! Of course the annual review was not constructive on how things can be made better, but as always a "you're not good enough", no matter how good you are. A 5 v 1 meeting where you have to bite your tongue to prevent saying things that might be unrecoverable.
This is why people lose morale and interest, why we lose surgical trainees, and most importantly why those who do get through divest themselves of all the extra "stuff" we have to do to jump through the hoops. You see the hoops don't matter before or after CCT, but some people seem to think it is important for trainees to waste their time padding CVs.
If every trainee leaves angry, it's not the trainees at fault...
The ARCP process is adversarial and frankly not fit for purpose. It needs robust reform.
Competency or numbers... Quality or quantity...
As an example...
4500 AAA per year (infra-renal). 450 vascular surgeons. 10 each.
However, some do more - up to 50 each.
This must mean that quite a few don't do any.
And yet trainees have to find more to do somehow.
This constant grinding down strips everyone of their enthusiasm. It prevents great trainees from becoming great trainers and consultants. It makes people disengage.
Interestingly it also ruins relationships between colleagues. God only knows why we use this system.
Sadly I have been prevented from doing so on so many occasions by frankly ridiculous and perplexingly bad actions and assessments from deaneries.
Then finally we come to out annual review. Where in most industries we would be treated as adults and human beings. We instead are left without information or any idea what the problem was for 2.5 hours. I left 3 hours after my time slot! Of course the annual review was not constructive on how things can be made better, but as always a "you're not good enough", no matter how good you are. A 5 v 1 meeting where you have to bite your tongue to prevent saying things that might be unrecoverable.
This is why people lose morale and interest, why we lose surgical trainees, and most importantly why those who do get through divest themselves of all the extra "stuff" we have to do to jump through the hoops. You see the hoops don't matter before or after CCT, but some people seem to think it is important for trainees to waste their time padding CVs.
If every trainee leaves angry, it's not the trainees at fault...
The ARCP process is adversarial and frankly not fit for purpose. It needs robust reform.
Competency or numbers... Quality or quantity...
As an example...
4500 AAA per year (infra-renal). 450 vascular surgeons. 10 each.
However, some do more - up to 50 each.
This must mean that quite a few don't do any.
And yet trainees have to find more to do somehow.
This constant grinding down strips everyone of their enthusiasm. It prevents great trainees from becoming great trainers and consultants. It makes people disengage.
Interestingly it also ruins relationships between colleagues. God only knows why we use this system.
Comments