We are committed to the NHS, we have more doctors...

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

Why?

.......

I'm not really sure what you are asking.

Is it 'why is the education of UK people important'?

Pennywise

I often wonder if we "over-train" doctors. Why not have shorter courses/training periods for particular branches rather than have this long term training scheme lasting many years where the doctors are trained in all kinds of areas they're unlikely to work in once qualified.

Eg, why not have a, say, 3/4 year course specifically aimed at qualifying as a GP. No hospital, no surgery, just concentrating on diagnosis, prescriptions and referrals with direct hands on experience in a GP surgery.

In other professions, there are usually many different streams that the trainee can take so as to specialise once qualified. It's fairly rare that everything is taught/experienced, so why not something similar for doctors?

princeofpounds

I find this topic really fascinating. I'm not sure I have a full handle on it, because a lot of vested interests and politics are involved in almost anything that gets published.


But there are plenty of interesting anomalies that pop up. For example, we have the NHS (and/or the BMC?) saying that doctors are too expensive to train and talkin about figures like 500k for a GP and 750k for a consultant. But the university course that has hit the papers seems quite happy to educate paying foreign students for under 300k and, presumably, can make a profit doing so.

Then we have the situation where there is huge demand for medical school places. Whilst I agree that we don't want to have low standards for medicine (as per any technical profession), the simple truth is that a vast number of those turned down would be perfectly capable of being a doctor.

Even if it cost more money to train a greater number of students, you might find the marginal wage demand is pushed down and you save many many times that money by a lower wage bill down the line.

Certainly despite much of the complaints about wages and working conditions, there is no serious disincentive apparent to students wanting to become doctors, so it can't be that bad.

I also find it interesting how foreign our medical service is now; it is obviously more apparent with nursing but plenty of doctors are foreign too. I actually have no particular problem with this, but it also makes me question why the BMC are permitted to cap intake when we clearly have an undersupply of doctors.


British readers might be surprised, but in many countries (Turkey, Germany, much of eastern Europe, probably some western European countries too) around the world pharmacy is a 'guild'-protected profession in a way more similar to doctors rather than pharmacists in this country. Chains are banned from owning more than one or a few pharmacies, meaning only individual pharmacists can be owners. Minimum separation distances are enforced to prevent competition. Pharmacy mark-ups are protected in the regulatory framework. It's funny how labour restrictions in medicine here are such an issue, but yet no-one remarks on the different market in pharmacy when in so many countries that would be a real oddity.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not really sure what you are asking.

I was asking why you thought nationality matters.

CLAPTON wrote: »

...Is it 'why is the education of UK people important'?

No.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

I was asking why you thought nationality matters.



No.

Because I think that the education of UK citizens does matter and so we should train more UK doctors.

antrobus

princeofpounds wrote: »

...But there are plenty of interesting anomalies that pop up. For example, we have the NHS (and/or the BMC?) saying that doctors are too expensive to train and talkin about figures like 500k for a GP and 750k for a consultant. But the university course that has hit the papers seems quite happy to educate paying foreign students for under 300k and, presumably, can make a profit doing so.....

I suspect you mean the BMA.

They do indeed have a big number which they get from the PSSRU, University of Kent. See http://www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/2014/

The cost of training a doctor is given as £485,390, but £249,261 of that is post-grad, and £59,797 is for living expenses and 'lost production costs', so the actual cost of a doctor's graduate training is £176,332, which isn't that much different from what the UCL is charging.

princeofpounds wrote: »

...I also find it interesting how foreign our medical service is now; it is obviously more apparent with nursing but plenty of doctors are foreign too. I actually have no particular problem with this, but it also makes me question why the BMC are permitted to cap intake when we clearly have an undersupply of doctors....

The BMA are certainly marginally in favour of a cap, but I don't think it's up to the. They were also in favour of a ban on new medical schools, but that hasn't stopped the UCL from opening one.

I suspect that the reason that the cap on medical students remain is because it is bl00dy expensive to train a doctor.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

Because I think that the education of UK citizens does matter and so we should train more UK doctors.

As long as you are willing to pay for it, that is no problem.

But that's not really all that relevant to the issue of what the UCL is doing as the students concerned have to self-finance. Thus it costs the taxpayer pretty much nothing.

Interestingly enough, the University of Buckingham (which is a private university) already offers degrees in medicine. The difference with the UCL is that they are a public university, who have decided to open a private medical school. As has Aston University, who will also be opening a private medical school in due course.

I am not sure why that should be a concern to anyone.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

As long as you are willing to pay for it, that is no problem.

But that's not really all that relevant to the issue of what the UCL is doing as the students concerned have to self-finance. Thus it costs the taxpayer pretty much nothing.

Interestingly enough, the University of Buckingham (which is a private university) already offers degrees in medicine. The difference with the UCL is that they are a public university, who have decided to open a private medical school. As has Aston University, who will also be opening a private medical school in due course.

I am not sure why that should be a concern to anyone.

I am in favour of training more UK doctors from well qualified Uk young people. Obviously I accept that that will be part taxpayer funded.

Whether or not private Unis educate foreign nationals in any subject is not relevant.

One wonders (but I don't know) how exactly one trains a foreign national to be a doctor in a private Uni without any hands on NHS experience.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

I am in favour of training more UK doctors from well qualified Uk young people. Obviously I accept that that will be part taxpayer funded.

Whether or not private Unis educate foreign nationals in any subject is not relevant....

Since what we are talking about here are private universities and private medical schools, we can agree that the question of nationality is irrelevant.

CLAPTON wrote: »

..One wonders (but I don't know) how exactly one trains a foreign national to be a doctor in a private Uni without any hands on NHS experience.

What makes you think they don't get any hands on NHS experience? The UCL has clinical education partnerships with five NHS trusts. It would a tad difficult to get GMC accredition without that kind of provision.

CLAPTON

the discussion was about the shortage of doctors and the cap on the numbers of medics going to Uni.

the relevance of the nationality of those being trained is self evident

the fact that private unis use the NHS as part of the training is relevent too.