|........................||Dear college tutor,
I have some opinion about the MMC (I saw you asking for opinion about MMC)
1) in the long run it is a good thing in the sense that there is less waste in human resources. More than 50% SHO now did not progress to become SPR (Is the statistic correct?)
2) however, it seems very restrictive, It seems that someone will stuck in the same region (possibly same hospital for 7 years) Every region has its own plus and minus, having working in different region, actually I did enjoy the variety, as sometimes I just amaze how people do thing differently from another. One unit I worked before did not require medical staff to do ultrasound whilst the other unit require them to do ultrasound which I find very useful.
3) It also restrictive in the sense that how if somehow the trainees develop 'mid-life crisis' and decide to take a year out doing travelling and so forth? or decide to go to USA and do some lab research/fellowship or some kind. (After been to ARVO, I am so looking forward to work in USA for a short time, in some centre they are driven by excellence, but in UK , it is being driven by service, by just comparing the study done here and in USA, the USA mostly do research to advance knowledge, whilst the 'research' in UK is done by the poor SHO using their own free time or even pocket money trying to do something quick to get publication. The tedious ethical application just drive everyone mad)
4) what is your selection for future ophthalmologists , is the one with the best academic results make the best ophthalmologist?
June 3, 2005 at 12:04:09 by About MMC
|I agree that as concieved by our
masters at the department of health it is very inflexible, but expect for
this to be less so in time.
The other disadvantage as I see it is that there will be only one bite at the cherry, at the moment persistance counts for something.