Premium
Variations in the application procedures for the specialist registrar post in otolaryngology
Author(s) -
Doshi J.,
Anari S.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
clinical otolaryngology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.914
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1749-4486
pISSN - 1749-4478
DOI - 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01236_18.x
Subject(s) - medicine , logbook , confidentiality , license , medical education , audit , process (computing) , otorhinolaryngology , surgery , management , oceanography , computer science , geology , operating system , political science , law , economics
Objective. To compare the application process and person specification requirements for each deanery in the United Kingdom for a Type I specialist registrar post in otolaryngology. Method. All 18 deaneries listed by the Joint Committee of Higher Surgical Training were contacted by email to send their most up to date person specification, job description and details of their application process. Those deaneries that did not respond were contacted by telephone. The person specification, application process and content of the application forms from each deanery were critically reviewed and compared. Results. 14/18 deaneries responded; four classified the information requested as confidential. Results included (number of deaneries in brackets): Application method: application form (8), curriculum vita (3), both (3). Submission method: post (13), e‐mail (1). Examples of the variable degree of objective assessment of achievements included: prizes (9), temporal bone course (2), validated logbook (6), peer‐review publications as essential (3), European Computer Driving License (2). Publication, presentation, audit, medical/surgical courses, management and Membership of a Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) were the only common themes amongst all deaneries. Conclusions. There was a wide variation in the application process and the information wanted by different deaneries. Many criteria within the person specification were not objectively assessed. With the introduction of modernising medical careers (MMC) and the change in higher surgical training, deaneries will need to re‐examine their application process and criteria. A nationally agreed application form and process should be considered to provide a more objective measure of distinguishing between applicants.