The NCHD Training Grant

Amnesiac_ie

Question:

Does anybody have the official line on where we stand as regards the training grant as of July 2010? Medical Manpower in my hosptial claim to "not know" what the situation is and whether I should submit a claim form or not. My college has not billed me for a "Training Fee" this year however; is it foolishly optimistic of me to assume my employer/the HSE will be paying this for the remainder of my training?

SleepDoc

Amnesiac_ie wrote: »

Question:

Does anybody have the official line on where we stand as regards the training grant as of July 2010? Medical Manpower in my hosptial claim to "not know" what the situation is and whether I should submit a claim form or not. My college has not billed me for a "Training Fee" this year however; is it foolishly optimistic of me to assume my employer/the HSE will be paying this for the remainder of my training?

The official position in the hospital I work in is that if your course etc is not on the HSE list it won't be paid for. And then only to the tune of 450 euro.

It's a paycut. A big whopping pay cut. On top of the other crap.

How far are the HSE trying to push their luck?

locum-motion

Don't you just love Boards.ie?

"Amnesiac" asks a question, "SleepDoc" answers it!

resus

HSE management will push it until all of us are abroad, then shut down services using HIQA under the guise of "insufficient clinical staffing cover," saving €€€€€ and then boasting how good and efficient they are and how they all deserve a pay rise.

Amnesiac_ie

The IMO have been very quiet on this issue... anyone have an official IMO line?

Jane5

I would imagine the "official IMO line" is just them asking how high the HSE wants doctors to jump so they can "negotiate" a jumping distance on our behalf.
I am totally convinced by now that the IMO is in the pay of the HSE and so is deliberately negotiating badly for the HSE's benefit and our detriment. This is just my opinion, with no factual evidence to back it up. However, it surely seems that way.

Hey, by the way!
Check this out: http://www.imt.ie/news/2010/08/cross-site-working-proposed-for-nchds.html

Pastafarian

Jane5 why would the HSE pay the IMO when the IMO is a fundamentall compromised organisation tobeing with. The IMO represents NCHD's, consultants, GP's and public health doctors. Now forget the public health doctors for a minute - how can one organisation represent both NCHD's and consultants ? It can't - you see the results yourself. These two groups whilst having some common interests also have mutually exclusive interests. Particularly when it comes to working hours, conditions and training - the very stuff the IMO is supposedly negotiating

Nchd2010

I don't mean to be argumentative or anything, but how exactly do NCHDs and consultants have "mutually exclusive" interests?

Pastafarian

Nchd2010 wrote: »

I don't mean to be argumentative or anything, but how exactly do NCHDs and consultants have "mutually exclusive" interests?

Wow your case of Stockholm syndrome is even more severe than I realised. Alternatively again I am forced to wonder if you are an NCHD because if you were this is such a no brainer.

1. Working hours. NCHD's are entitled to work in law abiding EWTD compliant jobs. Most want that. Some Stockholm cases like yourself (assuming you aren't an HSE propaganda tool) are with the consulants making life harder for the rest of us by giving tacit approval to the status quo. Most consultants are against EWTD and want their staff working entire weekends in the name of 'continuity of care'. Thus remaining in denial that handover is an inevitability and instead of learning to do handover better, sticking their heads in the sand.

2. Training. Due to the lack of proper organised training, NCHD's are dependent on the mood of consultants to provide teaching. This is directly contravened against the time demands on consultants and frankly the financial incentives of getting themselves over to the private clinic ASAP. Yet consultants decide the training structure and syllabus.

Jane5

He's not an NCHD, don't worry. Ask him a question only an NCHD would know

Nchd2010

Go on. This could be fun.

Pastafarian

Nchd2010 I've no interest in playing games with you. I believe you either are or were an NCHD.

What I am interested in is whether you agree or disagree that consultants and nchd's have sometimes directly opposing interests or not ?

Nchd2010

I really don't believe that consultants working in teaching hospitals are solely motivated by money and are only looking to the private hospital as quick as possible. If that was the case, they could easily double or treble their money working solely in private practice. If you ask questions and are proactive, you'll find that even those with private interests are more than happy to teach.

At the moment, though I'm in training for a non-surgical specialty, I'm working in a job where many procedures are performed. There is no benefit to me learning these kind of things long term. But my consultants are more than happy to take things a little slower, and teach me.

Pastafarian

Again Nchd2010 you are avoiding the question. Those are some nice anecdotes you've provided, but noone asked you for tips on getting training - we all know how the current system works. I do feel compelled to provide my own counter anecdote that I personally know of many consultatns <SNIP>(nevermind teach anyone) because they are busy doing other things.

I'll ask again:

Do you agree or disagree that consutlants and nchd's sometimes have directly opposing interests when it come sot working hours and training ?

A second question more specific to the current debate - do you believe one organisation, the IMO, can adequately represent both groups at the same time on a group level despite those opposing interests ?

Nchd2010

Neither of your questions really can be answered in one word. If you want one word answers, then no and yes.

However, there may be an odd time when the odd consultant might have to attend a clinic or whatever and can't sit down to teach/train. I don't think you can really generalise this. Also, seeing as you're so principled and righteous, have you put your concerns about consultants not fulfilling their contractual obligations in writing to either the HSE, HIQA, Comhairle na n-Ospidéal, or the relevant hospital authorities? If not, why not?

Secondly, I think you may find that the IMO plays a relatively small role in representing consultants. The IHCA is a far more popular union for consultants these days. Where you aware of this?

I'd appreciate similar courtesy from yourself in directly answering these questions Pastafarian. Thanks

sam34

Nchd2010 wrote: »

Neither of your questions really can be answered in one word. If you want one word answers, then no and yes.

when/where did pastafarian ask for one-word answers?

Nchd2010

He/She didn't. However I had fairly extensively answered the first question and he/she doesn't seem to have bothered reading a lot of my posts on another thread. Just trying to keep things simple. Probably for the best with such people.:cool:

sam34

Nchd2010 wrote: »

He/She didn't. However I had fairly extensively answered the first question and he/she doesn't seem to have bothered reading a lot of my posts on another thread. Just trying to keep things simple. Probably for the best with such people.:cool:

in fairness, you cant blame someone for not reading your posts on a different thread

Nchd2010

sam34 wrote: »

in fairness, you cant blame someone for not reading your posts on a different thread

Merciful hour. I meant that on another thread, he asked me questions more than once that I had answered extensively. Have a gander...the Hse breaking contractual agreement AGAIN thread. It's quite a read tbf.:)

sam34

Nchd2010 wrote: »

Merciful hour. I meant that on another thread, he asked me questions more than once that I had answered extensively. Have a gander...the Hse breaking contractual agreement AGAIN thread. It's quite a read tbf.:)

apologies, i took you up wrong and thought you were complaining that he wasnt addressing posts you made on that thread during the discussion here.

Pastafarian

Nchd2010 wrote: »

Neither of your questions really can be answered in one word. If you want one word answers, then no and yes.

However, there may be an odd time when the odd consultant might have to attend a clinic or whatever and can't sit down to teach/train. I don't think you can really generalise this. Also, seeing as you're so principled and righteous, have you put your concerns about consultants not fulfilling their contractual obligations in writing to either the HSE, HIQA, Comhairle na n-Ospidéal, or the relevant hospital authorities? If not, why not?

I am talking about consultants <SNIP>.
I have discussed some concerns regarding training and workign horus with a senior consultant (in fact two now that I think of it) and it became apparent from that conversation that they do not share those concerns, or at least if they do are not prepared to do anything about it. I see little point in writing letters etc since my experience in previous dealings with HSE/hospital authorities is that they will ignore them.

Secondly, I think you may find that the IMO plays a relatively small role in representing consultants. The IHCA is a far more popular union for consultants these days. Where you aware of this?

I am WELL aware of this. Of course the existence and popularity if the IHCA is BECAUSE one organisation can't represent both groups adequately and the consultants realised this and set up their own group. The IMO is hamstrung in terms of representing adequately the rights of NCHD's (or consultants for that matter).

I'd appreciate similar courtesy from yourself in directly answering these questions Pastafarian. Thanks

Done. Note I kept it free of rambling off topic anecdotes and unasked for patronising self-glorifying advice.

sam34 wrote: »

when/where did pastafarian ask for one-word answers?

I didn't. But since apparently reading comprehension is a bug-bear of nchd2010 I would like to point out that 'no' and 'yes' are not grammatically correct or even logical responses to the question 'do you agree or disagree....'

Nchd2010 wrote: »

He/She didn't. However I had fairly extensively answered the first question and he/she doesn't seem to have bothered reading a lot of my posts on another thread. Just trying to keep things simple. Probably for the best with such people.:cool:

I read all your answers. I didn't respond to each individual story and poitn you made because I felt it was distracting from the central issues of the thread and quite frankly I didn't want to turn it into a sniping and bitching match - which you seem to wish to do. If you want me to tear apart your stories and assumptions (of which there are many) on the other thread I will. (but later - I have to go somewhere now). Incidentally - can you leave off the personal insults please such as keepign things simple with 'such people' ? Thanks.

Nchd2010 wrote: »

Merciful hour. I meant that on another thread, he asked me questions more than once that I had answered extensively. Have a gander...the Hse breaking contractual agreement AGAIN thread. It's quite a read tbf.:)

You may have thought you answered my questinos but your answers were off the point.


Nchd2010 I have one further question for you: are you a consultant or do you locum as a consultant ?

Jane5

Nchd2010 wrote: »

Neither of your questions really can be answered in one word. If you want one word answers, then no and yes.

However, there may be an odd time when the odd consultant might have to attend a clinic or whatever and can't sit down to teach/train. I don't think you can really generalise this. Also, seeing as you're so principled and righteous, have you put your concerns about consultants not fulfilling their contractual obligations in writing to either the HSE, HIQA, Comhairle na n-Ospidéal, or the relevant hospital authorities? If not, why not?

Secondly, I think you may find that the IMO plays a relatively small role in representing consultants. The IHCA is a far more popular union for consultants these days. Where you aware of this?

I'd appreciate similar courtesy from yourself in directly answering these questions Pastafarian. Thanks

I'm taking this extraordinary statement as proof that you aren't an Irish NCHD. Any NCHD who has been in the system for more than a week knows damn well what would happen to them if they wrote to the HSE, HIQA or the relevant hospital authorities about their consultants not fulfilling their contractual obligations.

Nchd2010

Jane5, what exactly would happen, say if you made an anonymous complaint?

Pastafarian, I look forward to you tearing apart my assumptions and stories. Also you're right. I was kind of skim reading your posts because they're a little hysterical. Read the first question as "do you agree" soz.

Pastafarian

Nchd2010 wrote: »

Jane5, what exactly would happen, say if you made an anonymous complaint?

Pastafarian, I look forward to you tearing apart my assumptions and stories. Also you're right. I was kind of skim reading your posts because they're a little hysterical. Read the first question as "do you agree" soz.

Fair enough I'll take it as you don't agree. If you think mine are hysterical well - I find yours very patronising and completely lacking in insight that other people don't see things the way you do - trust me more nchd's agree with me than they do with you. Understand my side-swiping here is in direct response to yours. I don't wish to fight like that but if you do it I will respond in kind. I'll get back to the other thread tonight. I won't snipe and bitch if you won't - deal ?

So my question: are you a consulant then or locum consutlant ?

Jane5

Well, "NCHD" 2010,

Two things.

You cannot make "anonymous complaints". If a complaint such as this is made, it is a serious allegation, not to be taken lightly. Who made it, why they made it, etc etc, would have to be known or the complaint could not progress any further. It's like writing a letter to the newspaper, name and address must be supplied, and can only be withheld at the paper's discretion, and revealed if the contents of the letter turn out to be libellous.

Also, I have no beef with any particular consultant. I get on fine with just about all of mine, and my working conditions and training expenses are a completely separate issue to me, unrelated to any consultant's behaviour.

Jane5

So how long have you been a consultant, "NCHD 2010"?

I know you're not gonna answer this, or the question on the other thread regarding private vs public and how to address the shortfall in training funds.

Nchd2010

I can tell you now, if you want to make a complaint to HIQA anonymously, it can be done. I've done so within the last month, regarding a consultant I worked with who I felt was dangerously deficient.

Do you guys honestly think I'm a consultant pretending to be an NCHD? Wow.

more nchd's agree with me than they do with you

Of course they do, because most Irish NCHDs followed a honeyed path from private school with grinds to University in Trinners or D4 and never understood that actually sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the greater good. I know several classmates who are always going on about how difficult it is to pay the mortgage. Well no ****...that's what happens if you buy a house in an overinflated market...the country doesn't have to bail you out. And we're really close to defaulting on sovereign debt. Like really really close, from what I'm hearing.

Nchd2010

Just to clarify in case there's any doubt. I'm definitely not a consultant. Or a locum consultant. Far from it.

Pastafarian

Nchd2010 wrote: »

Of course they do, because most Irish NCHDs followed a honeyed path from private school with grinds to University in Trinners or D4 and never understood that actually sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the greater good. I know several classmates who are always going on about how difficult it is to pay the mortgage. Well no ****...that's what happens if you buy a house in an overinflated market...the country doesn't have to bail you out. And we're really close to defaulting on sovereign debt. Like really really close, from what I'm hearing.

Again the arrogance of your presumptions is astounding. See my latest post on the other thread. NCHD's agree with me out of a sense of duty to their patients - not out of some sense of entitlement.
The ironic thing is - you are actually part of the problem here. By defending and supporting the status quo you are making things worse for patients. Quite frankly I think you should be ashamed of your own arrogance and selfrighteousness.

RobFowl

Nchd2010 wrote: »

Of course they do, because most Irish NCHDs followed a honeyed path from private school with grinds to University in Trinners or D4 and never understood that actually sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the greater good.

Personally I worked in a fast food restaurants to get through college and certainly did not go to a private school or get grinds.

Some of my class are now consultants and very few (if any TBH) conform to your clichéd view. All of us worked hard and long hours far too often without any pay at all. Sleep deprivation and eating vending machine food while stuck in hospitals over 48-72 hour stints was more my experience rather than the dossing in the Res you suggest NCHD's get overtime for.

I suspect any medical experience you have was garnered from the "Doctor in the house" films.

Things have moved on from the 1950's so please take your prejudges and shove them....

PS Jane5 and Pastafarin especially may I suggest the following; go to NCHD2010's profile and follow these instructions;)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_whatelse#faq_bie_faq_whatelse_ignore

Nchd2010

In 2001, UCD had 937 students from semi and unskilled backgrounds.

I'd love to know why the middle classes pay for education in prestige schools. Sure none of the students ever go on to do medicine or anything. As for the Institute...

Good thinking though. Block out anyone who disagrees with you on the basis of fact. It'll be much easier to live in your world of endless victimhood.

Well done, really mature.

I wonder why hospitals bother with a doctors res? Sure there's noone that ever goes there. Ever. :rolleyes:

drkpower

I find it interesting the extremely hostile reaction NCHD2010 is geting here and on the other thread. While I certainly think he is clearly overplaying the 'Jenny from the Block' line, he does make a few valid points. But from the reaction he is getting, it is as if he is a complete troll whose points are completley unfounded.

On the two central point(s):

1. Training: it is far from universal in other professions for employers to pay for the training costs of their staff. For instance, most solicitors firms do not pay for Blackhall place fees, or for the attendance at courses, further diplomas etc once qualified. I suspect it is similar with accountancy etc. However, the situation in medicine has always been a bit different in that the access to training has always been essentially controlled by the State (ie. almost all of the training posts are public jobs) and therefore one could argue that there is more of an onus on the State to cover training costs (than say, an individual law firm). But the point is that an argument to the effect that NCHDs should cover all, or some, of their training costs is a reasonable argument to make. One may disagree with it, but from the reaction of many here, one might think that the argument is entirely unsustainable and without precedent. It isnt.

2. Hours: The fact that NCHDs are still doing shifts of 48-72 hours is entirely inexcusable and any attempt to do so is bogus. But you have to ask yourselves wtf ye have been doing for the last 10 years. There was serious momentum in 2000; but ye all sat on your asses and did nothing further. It really is baffling; and sadly, NCHDs only have themselves to blame. And despite all the talk, 10 years later, you see the exact same words being spoken in exactly the way they were in 2009 & 2008 & 2007 and....... yet there hasnt been any real substantive change at all.

NCHDs are, and always have been, world-class experts at moaning - about the employer, about each other, about the patients, about everyone else having such an easier life than them - but are woefully inept when it comes to doing something about it. As there is no doubt that NCHDs as a bunch are some of the most capable people in the country, the only reason why they are incapable of acting with some kind of purpose to end such ridiculous work practices is because, sadly, of the incredible selfishness of many of their number. NCHD2010 may attract your ire for being reluctant to rock the both on hours/work practices but at least he's honest; the rest of ye seem to be like almost every one of the other few thousands NCHDs who have gone through the system in the last 10 years; plenty of talk, next to no action.

Pastafarian

Drkpower
You say Ye as thou you are not an nchd?
What is your position if I may ask?

drkpower

Pastafarian wrote: »

Drkpower
You say Ye as thou you are not an nchd?
What is your position if I may ask?

Ex-nchd. No longer in the profession:):p.

RobFowl

Hi Drkpower

The first point is I think missing the point. NCHD posts are paid less than positions purely for service because they are (nominally at least) training posts. Thus the lower pay rate (as opposed to consultants here and staff grade positions in the UK) is supposed to reflect the fact they will be trained while in post.

While the Training Grant which my generation fought for has been lost now. GP training specifically has been changed quite dramatically by the actions of NCHD's over the past few years. It's a bit unfair to accuse recent NCHD's of doing nothing.

NCHD2010 's valid points are really drowned out by his/her trolling. Any validity they have is hard to say as they are usually surrounded by a litany of poorly informed comment and attempts to irritate other posters.
He/she really is at fault for the responses purely because they're acting like a muppet :rolleyes:

drkpower wrote: »

I find it interesting the extremely hostile reaction NCHD2010 is geting here and on the other thread. While I certainly think he is clearly overplaying the 'Jenny from the Block' line, he does make a few valid points. But from the reaction he is getting, it is as if he is a complete troll whose points are completley unfounded.

On the two central point(s):

1. Training: it is far from universal in other professions for employers to pay for the training costs of their staff. For instance, most solicitors firms do not pay for Blackhall place fees, or for the attendance at courses, further diplomas etc once qualified. I suspect it is similar with accountancy etc. However, the situation in medicine has always been a bit different in that the access to training has always been essentially controlled by the State (ie. almost all of the training posts are public jobs) and therefore one could argue that there is more of an onus on the State to cover training costs (than say, an individual law firm). But the point is that an argument to the effect that NCHDs should cover all, or some, of their training costs is a reasonable argument to make. One may disagree with it, but from the reaction of many here, one might think that the argument is entirely unsustainable and without precedent. It isnt.

2. Hours: The fact that NCHDs are still doing shifts of 48-72 hours is entirely inexcusable and any attempt to do so is bogus. But you have to ask yourselves wtf ye have been doing for the last 10 years. There was serious momentum in 2000; but ye all sat on your asses and did nothing further. It really is baffling; and sadly, NCHDs only have themselves to blame. And despite all the talk, 10 years later, you see the exact same words being spoken in exactly the way they were in 2009 & 2008 & 2007 and....... yet there hasnt been any real substantive change at all.

NCHDs are, and always have been, world-class experts at moaning - about the employer, about each other, about the patients, about everyone else having such an easier life than them - but are woefully inept when it comes to doing something about it. As there is no doubt that NCHDs as a bunch are some of the most capable people in the country, the only reason why they are incapable of acting with some kind of purpose to end such ridiculous work practices is because, sadly, of the incredible selfishness of many of their number. NCHD2010 may attract your ire for being reluctant to rock the both on hours/work practices but at least he's honest; the rest of ye seem to be like almost every one of the other few thousands NCHDs who have gone through the system in the last 10 years; plenty of talk, next to no action.

Jane5

drkpower wrote: »

I find it interesting the extremely hostile reaction NCHD2010 is geting here and on the other thread. While I certainly think he is clearly overplaying the 'Jenny from the Block' line, he does make a few valid points. But from the reaction he is getting, it is as if he is a complete troll whose points are completley unfounded.

On the two central point(s):

1. Training: it is far from universal in other professions for employers to pay for the training costs of their staff. For instance, most solicitors firms do not pay for Blackhall place fees, or for the attendance at courses, further diplomas etc once qualified. I suspect it is similar with accountancy etc. However, the situation in medicine has always been a bit different in that the access to training has always been essentially controlled by the State (ie. almost all of the training posts are public jobs) and therefore one could argue that there is more of an onus on the State to cover training costs (than say, an individual law firm). But the point is that an argument to the effect that NCHDs should cover all, or some, of their training costs is a reasonable argument to make. One may disagree with it, but from the reaction of many here, one might think that the argument is entirely unsustainable and without precedent. It isnt.

2. Hours: The fact that NCHDs are still doing shifts of 48-72 hours is entirely inexcusable and any attempt to do so is bogus. But you have to ask yourselves wtf ye have been doing for the last 10 years. There was serious momentum in 2000; but ye all sat on your asses and did nothing further. It really is baffling; and sadly, NCHDs only have themselves to blame. And despite all the talk, 10 years later, you see the exact same words being spoken in exactly the way they were in 2009 & 2008 & 2007 and....... yet there hasnt been any real substantive change at all.

NCHDs are, and always have been, world-class experts at moaning - about the employer, about each other, about the patients, about everyone else having such an easier life than them - but are woefully inept when it comes to doing something about it. As there is no doubt that NCHDs as a bunch are some of the most capable people in the country, the only reason why they are incapable of acting with some kind of purpose to end such ridiculous work practices is because, sadly, of the incredible selfishness of many of their number. NCHD2010 may attract your ire for being reluctant to rock the both on hours/work practices but at least he's honest; the rest of ye seem to be like almost every one of the other few thousands NCHDs who have gone through the system in the last 10 years; plenty of talk, next to no action.

I appreciate your point, drkpower, but you have left the NCHD world behind, and, no disrespect intended, but it's far easier to say what you did when it's no longer a problem you face every day. Most NCHDs, especially the ones that are a few years in, rely on their jobs for a living, have mortgages, families, expenses that younger, single NCHDs and interns may not have.
I would feel better about rocking the boat as an individual if I were a younger NCHD, unmarried, with no commitments, and did not have so much invested into this, and not be relying on it for my income as I do.

I do occasionally try to organise us to stand up for ourselves, and on one occasion, got a solicitor to force the hospital to pay our training grant to us when they were refusing-nearly five years ago now, time flies! Paid for him myself, and I think when they paid back the grant I was still out of pocket, but I was making a point.

drkpower

I agree with you Rob, in may respects and yes, when I say 'nothing' obviously I am engaging in a little exaggeration myself. Of course there have been changes in a decade (the most proisperous of the countries history), anything less really would be inexplicable. But to be honest, the fact that there are still NCHDs working 48-72 hours is an incredible stain on the reputation on anyone who is now, or was an NCHD in the past 10 years and did very little to change it.

And on your training point, I agree, I briefly alluded to the slightly unique position of medical training. All I am saying is that payment for external courses, attendance at conferences, exams etc is not something that goes without saying. Strictly speaking, the training to which you refer is the on-the-job training an NCHD receives from his consultant rather than conferences abroad, laptops and PDAs;).

drkpower

Jane, I hear ya but my very point is that NCHDs need to act as a group. It may require someone to get things going. I dont know how much you know about 2000 but what happened there showed how, if a few people plant the seeds of rebellion in other's minds, things can take off pretty rapidly.

Anyone know of any NCHDs from 2000 whose careers have been adversely affected by their actions in that dispute? Didnt think so.

Jane5

Sadly, the 2000 "uprising" was before my time, was only in college then, but yeah, we need something like that again. Problem is, most NCHDs have been so brainwashed re: striking that they are much more reluctant now than they were before to do this, and it is one of the only bargaining cards they have.

In NZ one of the consultants responsible for our training gave us a paper to read on the ethics of striking-it basically said that doctors were morally and ethically obliged to strike if there was no other way around it and the aim of the strike was to prevent conditions from deteriorating so much that doctors either left the country or the profession.
Because no doctors in the country kills people, whereas controlled strikes just delay things and cause hassle. I really like that guy, and he had a very good point.

Jane5

I do think though that for sure something we should all begin doing is organising ourselves within our own hospitals, and implementing change where it will do some good.

For instance, I know of one peripheral hospital where the few NCHDs there, who were a tight knit bunch, got together and sent out a memo to all the wards that they were no longer giving first doses as there was no evidence for this practice and they were run off their feet. Then they began refusing to give them, individually, while on call or at work. They garnered support from some unlikely corners, including one consultant as old as the hills and quite a few of the younger nurses. And now there is no "first dose" in that hospital. (Mind you, the HSE will probably close all the small hospitals soon anyway, but you get the picture).

drkpower

Jane5 wrote: »

Sadly, the 2000 "uprising" was before my time, was only in college then, but yeah, we need something like that again. Problem is, most NCHDs have been so brainwashed re: striking that they are much more reluctant now than they were before to do this, and it is one of the only bargaining cards they have.

Believe me Jane, the attitude to striking (and not rocking the boat in general) was far more conservative in 2000 amongst medics than it is now. In 2000, the only precedent we had was the 'strike' in the 1970s and a day didnt go by without someone trotting out the urban legends (perhaps true?) about a handful of then NCHDs who were railroaded out of the profession following their involvment in the 1970s strike. Now, you guys have the 2000 strike as a precedent; noone was railroaded out of the profession on foot of it (except me, but that was by choice...;)); i'd challenge you to name even one NCHD who was seen to be centrally involved in the agitation back then?; it was very succesful; it showed that the (forerunner of the) HSE will compromise when the pressure is on; most consultants with 1-10 years expereince now were 'involved' (at least to the extent that they rowed in behind those of us who took the lead) and should understand your predicament.

So, Jane, its actually easier to strike now than it was in 2000, much much easier. There is only one factor that makes it worse and that is the economic climate; but that is why you need to control the agenda. Use the massive NCHD overtime bill we read about in the Sindo every now and then; turn it to your advantage; tell the public why you want to get rid of it AND improve patient care AND get rid of 80+ hr/weeks.

Traumadoc

Pastafarian wrote: »

Most consultants are against EWTD and want their staff working entire weekends in the name of 'continuity of care'. Thus remaining in denial that handover is an inevitability and instead of learning to do handover better, sticking their heads in the sand.
.

Sorry but that is not true at all , many of todays consultants went on strike in 2000 not to make money but to reduce our hours - most consultants support the EWTD.

Pastafarian

Traumadoc wrote: »

Sorry but that is not true at all , many of todays consultants went on strike in 2000 not to make money but to reduce our hours - most consultants support the EWTD.

Hey Traumadoc.
You put me in a difficult position here - there is a limit to what I can say.
Suffice it to say - most does not equal all. Quite what figure are for or against is up for debate - but I do know for a fact that not all are in favour of the EWTD.

Traumadoc

Yes that is true especially in surgical specialities who believe you learn by working thousands of hours to gain experience ( learn by mistakes etc) - but many other countries - Australia and newzealand can train surgeons without having to work more than 50 hours per week.

PoleStar

Traumadoc wrote: »

Yes that is true especially in surgical specialities who believe you learn by working thousands of hours to gain experience ( learn by mistakes etc) - but many other countries - Australia and newzealand can train surgeons without having to work more than 50 hours per week.

Most would argue however that an Irish trained surgeon is much more experienced and independent than those in either the States where the training in years is much shorter, the UK where they have dropped the operating hours of a trainee to a third of what it was (with a corresponding massive increase in the suspension rates for new surgeons in the first 2 years of practice). In Australia, similar to the states, newly qualified surgeons are much more supervised in their first few years due to lack of experience.

resus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375310/pdf/jmedeth00256-0055a.pdf

Traumadoc

PoleStar wrote: »

Most would argue however that an Irish trained surgeon is much more experienced and independent .

Perhaps it is because they have done more unsupervised operating that gives them this independence -but is it good?

imported_guy

PoleStar wrote: »

Most would argue however that an Irish trained surgeon is much more experienced and independent than those in either the States where the training in years is much shorter, the UK where they have dropped the operating hours of a trainee to a third of what it was (with a corresponding massive increase in the suspension rates for new surgeons in the first 2 years of practice). In Australia, similar to the states, newly qualified surgeons are much more supervised in their first few years due to lack of experience.

in the states after your residency(board certification), you are free to work private practice, unsupervised, as you are a board certified physician/surgeon but some do chose to do a fellowship(extra 1-3 years depending on speciality), alot of people dont do fellowships in specialities like say, anesthesia(4 years), general surgery(5 years), dermatology(4 years), A&E (3 years) family practice (3 years), psych (3-4 years) and so on, they just go straight into a private partnership/group practice.

most fellowships are probably done in either internal medicine or pediatrics, but even with those you can work as a hospitalist unsupervised without a fellowship, but a hospitalist is not a consultant as someone mentioned earlier, even though they are the "attending physician".