I, still, don't know what a "junior Doctor" is.

j.mcdrmd

Interns, straight out of college, are "junior Doctors", they have a Degree in Medicine.
They are being trained.
But they treat Patients.

Senior House Officers aka SHOs are "ONLY junior Doctors".
They are ONLY being trained.
But they treat Patients.

Registrars, aka Regs, are "ONLY junior Doctors".
They are ONLY being trained.
But they treat Patients.

Specialist Registrars, aka SpRs, are "ONLY junior Doctors".
They are ONLY being trained.
But they treat Patients.

Patients decide (the ones who value healthcare, in my experience) sometimes there is nothing for it but hospital. They don't want to waste the Doctors time, so often turn up quite a bit later than they should.

I used to think that if the Doctor called the SHO then you might sick.

If the SHO called the REG, it might be serious.

If the REG called the SPR now it is serious.

If the SPR called the Consultant…"Duirt me leat go raibh me breoite".

But that was when I thought that Patients in hospital were in the hands of properly qualified Doctors, not some class of junior trainee chancers.

If, as it seems to me, so called "junior Doctors" are looking after Patients should we not be looking after them?

And that is only the NCHD's.

Doctors, in Ireland, are running on empty.

challengemaster

Did you have a point? If you did I missed it.

j.mcdrmd

challengemaster wrote: »

Did you have a point? If you did I missed it.

If Ireland wants a decent healthcare system they need to pay attention to the actual providers.

That means treating the providers of healthcare decently same as they are elsewhere.

Like New Zealand did.

Xeyn

Your original post seems a bit conflicting. On one hand you seem to be implying that NCHDs are not properly qualified doctors and possibly shouldn't be treating patients. On the other hand you seem to suggest that NCHDs are mistreated.
Many doctors do a 5 or 6 year undergraduate training. When they qualify they are interns wit extremely limited clinical responsibility in treating patient's. This over all training is more than adequate in the subsequent autonomy given to these doctors in their next phase. It is very appropriate for patients to be seen and treated by appropriately qualified doctors and all NCHDs working within their appropriate level and area are deemed appropriately qualified. Just like in any sphere of work there are those who are not up to it at any level (including consultants) but they are in the extreme minority.

j.mcdrmd

Xeyn wrote: »

Your original post seems a bit conflicting. On one hand you seem to be implying that NCHDs are not properly qualified doctors and possibly shouldn't be treating patients. On the other hand you seem to suggest that NCHDs are mistreated.
Many doctors do a 5 or 6 year undergraduate training. When they qualify they are interns wit extremely limited clinical responsibility in treating patient's. This over all training is more than adequate in the subsequent autonomy given to these doctors in their next phase. It is very appropriate for patients to be seen and treated by appropriately qualified doctors and all NCHDs working within their appropriate level and area are deemed appropriately qualified. Just like in any sphere of work there are those who are not up to it at any level (including consultants) but they are in the extreme minority.

The media, amongst others, seem to embrace the idea that "junior Doctors" almost deserve to be mistreated. Ideas such as forcing Doctors to work for several years in Ireland to pay back the taxpayer for funding their education! If Ireland treated Doctors properly why would that be necessary?


The majority of the general public seem to agree, "but sure they are only "junior Doctors" for the first year or two, then they earn the big bucks". Perhaps they associate 'junior Doctors" exclusively with Interns? "Sure you have to start somewhere and aren't there Interns in lots of jobs nowadays." The Doctors treating them are "proper Doctors", senior ones like Senior House Officers for example.

The HSE does not seem to care about the basics of employment law.

The IMO seem to have swallowed up a lot of money but seem to be unable to achieve much for Doctors and consequently those in their care, the Patients.

So who are these "junior Doctors who seem to be causing the problem and what are they saying?"

The actual Doctors (not exclusively NCHDs), at least the many I have spoken to, seem to think that Patients are being short changed by having overworked, unsupported Doctors treating them. They have been desperately trying to prop up the system for far too long.

Healthcare seems to work well in New Zealand, from what I have heard. How did they achieve that I wonder? Consultant led strike? Healthcare is led from the top down.

sleepyheadh

I think are very confused about the different categories of Doctor, someone better explain it, or else this will just go around and around in circles.

Extrasupervery

What is even going on. Isn't it better to be in continuous training?

Back in the day nurses were trained for a few short years and then they qualified and there was no further training. Now we train for 4(+) years and we are qualified, but there are numerous opportunities for further practice development, both mandatory and optional. I think this is much more preferable to the old system.

Docs are more highly trained and have huge scope for specialisation, thus the need for endless training.

Still don't know what's going on.

j.mcdrmd

Extrasupervery wrote: »

What is even going on. Isn't it better to be in continuous training?

Back in the day nurses were trained for a few short years and then they qualified and there was no further training. Now we train for 4(+) years and we are qualified, but there are numerous opportunities for further practice development, both mandatory and optional. I think this is much more preferable to the old system.

Docs are more highly trained and have huge scope for specialisation, thus the need for endless training.

Still don't know what's going on.

Would it be acceptable to "Qualified Nurses" to be referred to as:-

"junior Nurses"

"Non Senior Nurses"

"Non Midwife Nurses"

"Non Matron Nurses" etc?

his_dudeness

The public only see "nurses", and make no distinction for the specialism that they may have undertaken.

However, the public do see a difference between a GP, a consultant and an NCHD/junior doctor/resident - in fact many still see a "Mr" as being a step up from being a doctor (well played, surgeons)

j.mcdrmd

his_dudeness wrote: »

The public only see "nurses", and make no distinction for the specialism that they may have undertaken.

However, the public do see a difference between a GP, a consultant and an NCHD/junior doctor/resident - in fact many still see a "Mr" as being a step up from being a doctor (well played, surgeons)

I don't know enough about Nursing to comment, however, I have yet to come across a qualified Nurse labelled "junior Nurse" or "Non Matron Nurse".

GP is another area I am not up to date on but also have yet to come across labels such as "junior GP" or "Non Senior GP".

The terms "Senior House Officer", "Registrar", "Specialist Registrar and "Consultant" seem to be understood to be distinct grades of QUALIFIED Doctors, by most.

The difficulty arises when the terms "NCHD" and "junior Doctor" are used.

When I ask members of the public "What is a "junior Doctor"?, they almost always reply:-

a. The first year or two after they finish their degree.
b. I don't know, I never really thought about it.
c. Intern.

When I ask "What is an NCHD?" they reply:-

a. The first year or two after they finish their degree. (This group think "junior Doctor" = "NCHD").
b. Doctors who don't make it to Senior House Officer or Reg etc.
c. All Doctors except Consultants maybe?
d. What do the letters stand for? I don't know.

By the way, what is a "resident"?

challengemaster

Other than spouting a load of nonsense on this thread you still haven't made any valid points about ANYTHING. I suggest you start there, maybe try put together a coherent sentence on what your point(s) are?

Without doing that, nobody can: have a discussion on the topic, or try to inform you of what you don't understand

j.mcdrmd wrote: »

GP is another area I am not up to date on but also have yet to come across labels such as "junior GP" or "Non Senior GP".

They don't exist. GP is it - there's no junior, senior, anything. Once completing their intern year any doctor can apply for the GP training scheme. If they get accepted and complete this scheme they are then a GP. GP's can further specialise and expand their skillset, but there is no different degrees of GP.

When I ask members of the public "What is a "junior Doctor"?, they almost always reply:-

2 questions:
Who are you?
Why are you asking the general public anything? particularly when you don't understand the field you're asking questions about?

his_dudeness

j.mcdrmd wrote: »

By the way, what is a "resident"?

Resident is the term used in the US for doctors in training, also in parts of Europe.

It harks back to the initial methods of training, started by Haldsted in the US around the turn of the 1900s, where trainee doctors lived in the hospital for the duration of their training, and thus were the "resident" doctors - in the same way we have "house" doctors (JHOs are extinct but the SHO term still exists). Prior to this, medical training was, or at least seemed to be, relatively ad hoc. And it is because of that training methods that we still today have doctors working 24-36 hour shifts. But unlike Haldsted and his colleagues, the current crop tend not to be high on cocaine and heroin all the time.

(The series The Knick on Sky is giving a pretty good representation of that period of time in medical history)