BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recent changes to postgraduate training in the United Kingdom have led to considerable debate regarding selection processes for specialist training (ST) positions. A survey of the opinion of a group of consultants on the relative importance of selection criteria for entry into the first year of specialist training (ST 1) was conducted. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was sent to the e-mail addresses of all consultants at 4 hospitals in London with a request to rank order the importance of specific selection criteria when assessing (1) a candidate's suitability for entry into ST 1, (2) the fairest shortlisting mechanism, and (3) whether an interview should be a necessity for appointment. RESULTS: Of 657 consultants successfully contacted, 212 (32%) replied. Previous specialty-specific experience gained during foundation (intern-level) training was considered the most important criteria in assessing suitability for entry into ST 1 with additional research degrees second most important. A conventional curriculum vitae (CV) was considered the fairest way of shortlisting candidates, whereas a nationalized final undergraduate examination (Final MB) was least favored. Ninety-five percent of respondents felt that an interview was essential for appointment to ST 1. CONCLUSIONS: Consultants place the most emphasis on previous specialty-specific experience and additional research degrees when considering selection for ST 1, bringing into question the generic nature of foundation training. Consultants preferred to maintain some subjective controls over purely objective markers in the selection process. Thus, there is little support for a nationalized ranked examination as a shortlisting tool, and an interview is recognized as essential for appointment to ST 1. There is a need to build on these preliminary findings by conducting further investigations before changes to selection methodology are implemented. Copyright 2010 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recent changes to postgraduate training in the United Kingdom have led to considerable debate regarding selection processes for specialist training (ST) positions. A survey of the opinion of a group of consultants on the relative importance of selection criteria for entry into the first year of specialist training (ST 1) was conducted. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was sent to the e-mail addresses of all consultants at 4 hospitals in London with a request to rank order the importance of specific selection criteria when assessing (1) a candidate's suitability for entry into ST 1, (2) the fairest shortlisting mechanism, and (3) whether an interview should be a necessity for appointment. RESULTS: Of 657 consultants successfully contacted, 212 (32%) replied. Previous specialty-specific experience gained during foundation (intern-level) training was considered the most important criteria in assessing suitability for entry into ST 1 with additional research degrees second most important. A conventional curriculum vitae (CV) was considered the fairest way of shortlisting candidates, whereas a nationalized final undergraduate examination (Final MB) was least favored. Ninety-five percent of respondents felt that an interview was essential for appointment to ST 1. CONCLUSIONS: Consultants place the most emphasis on previous specialty-specific experience and additional research degrees when considering selection for ST 1, bringing into question the generic nature of foundation training. Consultants preferred to maintain some subjective controls over purely objective markers in the selection process. Thus, there is little support for a nationalized ranked examination as a shortlisting tool, and an interview is recognized as essential for appointment to ST 1. There is a need to build on these preliminary findings by conducting further investigations before changes to selection methodology are implemented. Copyright 2010 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.