Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T23:39:50.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

MTAS fiasco: further shortlisting issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Gregory J. Lydall*
Affiliation:
Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust, Highgate Mental Health Centre, London N19 5NX, email: grogL@doctors.org.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
The columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2008

Before the review group set up by the Department of Health (March 2007) to assess the Medical Training Application Service (MTAS) allowed for guaranteed interviews with trainees, a north London psychiatry rotation was surveyed regarding their MTAS experiences in a similar method to that of Whelan et al (Reference Whelan, Jarrett and Meerten2007).

Of the 52 trainees approached about the survey, 37 responded (71%). Of those, 32 were shortlisted (86%) by MTAS, 18 were offered one interview (49%), 8 two interviews (21%), and 3 were offered three or four interviews (8%). The ratio of applications to interviews was 2.3:1.

This group, which had been competitively selected in the past 2 or 3 years for basic psychiatric training in a popular London rotation, did better than the Whelan's sample (60%) in succeeding in being shortlisted at all. However, 19 of these London trainees (51%) were not shortlisted by MTAS for London. Conversely, 12 (66%) of the remaining 18 trainees that were shortlisted for London (an area generally assumed to be competitive) were not shortlisted elsewhere.

As regards applicants with Highly Skilled Migrant Permits, forming 3% of the total sample, 20% were not shortlisted, compared with 4 out of the total 31 (13%) with UK/EEA/Spousal visas.

Trainees’ comments attest to the emotion behind the numbers:

‘The lottery-like [shortlisting] result… illustrates the absurdity of this process.’

‘I think it's not so much the system as the loss of 8000 jobs that is appalling.’

‘Why should doctors with families… have to consider “less competitive geographies”… especially as we have been appointed in open competition in the old system?’

Like Whelan's, this survey highlighted the questionable validity and reliability of the initial MTAS shortlisting process.

References

Whelan, P., Jarrett, P., Meerten, M., et al (2007) MTAS fiasco: lessons for psychiatry. Psychiatric Bulletin, 31, 425427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.