The full report is even more impressive than the interim report, and I wouldn’t have thought that was possible. The main difference seems to be that Tooke recommends taking medical education out of the hands of the Department of Health. It would be hard to think of a more damning recommendation, short of burning Patricia Hewitt in effigy.
The more interesting recommendation though is his demand that there should be a definition of the doctor’s role, or more accurately the roles of all healthcare professionals including every kind of doctor. This is very similar to a question that I asked here last year: What makes a good doctor, anyway?
The question of course is how much or how little of it Gordie will implement. Given his recent sound-bite that we should all be screened to pick up illness early, despite the fact he’d just cut back on the early treatment of some of the diseases that early screening would pick up, it seems that taking advice isn’t one of his strengths.
It’s a very different fight this year. Last year it was about getting the information out there, about saying “no, it isn’t as bad as that, it’s far far worse than that”. This year it’s about holding the bastards accountable; it’s about saying “you asked for an independent report, now act on it”.
And yes, of course I’m going to do what I can. Who was I kidding?
Aphra Behn - danger of eclectic shock 
I think we ought to burn Patricia Hewit in effigy as well though.
I can’t see much of the report being implemented. Tomorrow, I might just write Gordon a letter. Not that he’ll listen but it will give me something to rant about.
And yes, much effigy burning of Hewitt should occur.
As with all independent reports, he will call it far-reaching and important, then just implement small, politically-expedient bits, while totally ignoring the fact that the whole lot needs to be implemented in order to make the changes succeed.
It happened not too long ago with the Tomlinson Report into education. It recommended a complete change in the way we look at post-16 education, the academic/vocational divide etc. The Gov’t just took the idea of Diplomas, diluted it, cut it off from all the other recommendations and made it utterly pointless and unworkable. Then implemented it.
I’m uneasy about this proposed NHS : Medical Education England (MEE) malarky since it’s unclear to me why it’s necessary. I concede I’ve not digested all of the report or recommendations yet, but what I raed yesterday about MEE in Recommendation 47, being the “interface between policy development and implementation” and “coordinate coherent advice to Government” seems to place it rather more closely as a politically reactive entity than I’d wish.
I did think the other additional point added to the final report, Recommendation 46 ’bout EWTD directive and trying to be flexible in applying this was sensible and useful.
As you say though, a thorough and thought out report is generated, but the substance will be implementation (probably of selective bits).
May Gordon Brown live in interesting times 8)
Oh, yes, Z. You get the brushwood and I’ll get the petrol. Little Medic, you can join in.
Scribber. you are right of course. I’m not up to speed with education, but it all sounds horribly familiar.
Shrink, I suspect that Tooke concluded that nonen of the existing bodies were to be trusted with medical education, given their present form.
Thanks all for reading and commenting.
Aphra.