Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:41:33.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patient-centred psychiatry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Rory O'Shea
Rory O'Shea*
Affiliation:
Psychiatric Service for the Elderly, Box 311, Fulbourn Hospital, Cambridge CB1 3RR (on behalf of the Collegiate Trainees Committee)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
The columns
Information
Psychiatric Bulletin , Volume 29 , Issue 7 , July 2005 , pp. 276
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 © 2005. The Royal College of Psychiatrists

We welcome the article ‘Patient-centred psychiatry’ (Bhugra & Holsgrove, Psychiatric Bulletin, February 2005, 29, 49–52) providing information and stimulating debate on the likely future of postgraduate psychiatric training.

Currently most trainees spend substantially longer than the proposed 5 years training. It seems that future trainees will have to learn less, learn more intensively or do less service work. The impact on patients and trainers, and resources necessary to implement changes, must be examined in advance. There may be further deterioration in continuity of care, particularly if all posts are for 6 months. Psychotherapy higher specialist training currently takes 5 years; how would this be incorporated into the proposed model? Will sub-specialist (‘super-specialist’?) training exist as we know it now? Will special interest and research sessions remain unchanged? Information is also needed on what form assessments might take. It is crucial that factual knowledge remains important within any new competency-based assessment.

What flexibility will exist within the new system; for example: if a trainee wants further experience in a sub-specialty; if a trainee does not achieve necessary competencies within the 5-year period; or achieves them well before this? Consideration should be given to transitional arrangements, for example, for trainees taking time away from psychiatry and returning to a new system.

The College runs training programmes and examinations in jurisdictions not affected by Modernising Medical Careers or the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board; trainees in such areas wonder how the proposed new system might affect them.

The authors suggest using the MRCPsych Part I as a ‘suitable screen for entry into the specialty’. We would welcome clarification of this. We worry that the College wishes to control entry to training by deeming people suitable or unsuitable for psychiatry. Currently even repeatedly failing the MRCPsych examination does not prevent one from working in psychiatry, but under the new system would this remain the case? Should it?

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.