Exemption from AMC "competent authority pathway

Discussion in 'Australian Medical Council (AMC) EXAM' started by Ross., Jun 28, 2007.

  1. Perika

    Perika Guest

    UK bans Aussie doctors

    After reading this article this I am sure that Australian and all non EU Goverments will introduce the reciprocal measures.

    The Australian
    UK bans Aussie doctors

    Leigh Dayton | February 08, 2008
    DOCTORS from Australia and other Commonwealth nations will be barred from working in Britain's public health system from next month.

    The move, announced yesterday, is designed to safeguard jobs for British doctors, thousands of whom failed to obtain posts last year because of overseas medical graduates seeking wider experience or specialist training.

    "It's a knee-jerk response to do with the oversupply of British-trained doctors," said Gary Speck, Australian Medical Association vice-president.

    His counterpart in the British Medical Association, Hamish Meldrum, was equally unimpressed. "This is a confusing move, which seems to achieve little apart from adding to the uncertainty for overseas doctors in the NHS (National Health Service)," he said.

    Among the 277,000 doctors registered in Britain, roughly half are from Commonwealth nations, including Australia.

    While applications will no longer be accepted from Australia and other countries outside the EU, doctors from nations on the banned list who are already working in Britain will not be pushed out of positions.

    The restrictions reverse a tradition of relying on overseas-trained doctors to fill NHS positions. But since 1997, the number of medical school places in Britain has almost doubled, and there are now enough home-grown graduates to fill training posts.

    Last year, many British doctors were denied jobs, or won only short-term positions, as 10,000 overseas-trained doctors applied for 20,000 posts, causing a collapse in the process for selecting doctors for higher education.

    AMA executive counsellor John Gullotta said the ban would hit young Australian doctors hardest as they headed overseas for further training and experience in a different setting.

    "In Australia, by 2012, the number of medical graduates will increase quite significantly. However, we have to ensure that they're adequately trained and we have the training positions in all specialties available here in Australia," he said.

    Britain's new rules are expected to cut the pool of potential applications by 3000-5000 by next year.

    But officials admitted yesterday that this would still not be enough to ensure all British graduates landed jobs. Between 700 and 1100 young doctors will probably be denied jobs next year and beyond.

    The British Department of Health announced it would consult over proposals to impose additional limits on foreign applications. Its preferred option is to tell regional public health bodies that international medical graduates should be eligible for posts only if there are no suitable applications from Britain or the EU, effectively excluding almost all of them.

    "They should have done this years ago," said Matthew Jamieson-Evans, spokesman for RemedyUK, a lobby group formed by young British doctors.

    "If they had done it sooner, it would have avoided a lot oftrouble."

    Also yesterday, Britain's medical regulator launched a major inquiry into the competence of foreign doctors after it emerged that they were twice as likely to face disciplinary hearings as British medical graduates.
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Britain shuts doors on training, Indian doctors happy

    By Dipankar De Sarkar, London, Feb 7 : A group representing Indian-origin doctors working in Britain Thursday welcomed a move by the government to close training places for doctors from India and other countries outside Europe.

    But it also expressed concern that the new rules announced by the Home Office could disadvantage a small number of India-born doctors who are already in Britain on work permits rather than High Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) visas.

    The British government, which has been under sustained attack over immigration, announced that from March doctors living outside the European Union region will not be eligible to apply for posts through the HSMP.

    And from April 1, skilled Indian doctors - so-called Tier 1 migrants - will no longer be able to apply for higher medical training posts under a new points-based immigration system.

    However, those Indian doctors who are already in Britain under the HSMP scheme would be able to apply for training and jobs and treated at par with British and European applicants, the government said Wednesday.

    The new restrictions overturn a tradition, going back more than 50 years, of successive British governments encouraging foreign-born and -trained doctors to migrate to Britain and help run its National Health Service.

    Forty-six percent of doctors registered with the General Medical Council in Britain were trained abroad - mostly in India, Pakistan, South Africa and Australia. But Indian doctors settled in Britain welcomed the government move.

    "We welcome the step, but advance notice of these changes must be given to those to applicants," said Satheesh Mathew, vice chairperson of the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO).

    "This should have happened four years ago. We don't have enough training posts and our UK doctors should have opportunities," added BAPIO President Ramesh Mehta.

    However, BAPIO members expressed concern that a "small minority of doctors" - said to number around 1,000 - will be disadvantaged.

    These are doctors who came to Britain on work permits, rather than HSMP visas. The introduction of HSMP visas has left many of them in a lurch. While some are waiting to convert to HSMP visas, there is likelihood that those who get HSMP visas after Feb 29 will not be considered at par with British and European doctors.

    That could mean that employers would, by law, have to give precedence to European and British applicants for a job or training post before considering those on work permits.

    The new rules are expected cut the number of potential applicants for training posts by 3,000 to 5,000 by 2009. However, even this cut is not considered enough to guarantee a job to all British medicine graduates who are good to enough to get jobs.

    As a result, the government estimates that 700 to 1,100 such British graduates will be denied jobs in 2009 and beyond.

    Medical schools in Britain are thought to be among the finest in the world and the government move follows the expansion of the European Union, which now has 27 member states.

    The move is aimed at striking a balance between Britain's commitments to its European partners and ensuring that the majority of those Indian doctors who are already in Britain are not affected.

    However, Hamish Meldrum, chairperson of the British Medical Association Council, said: "This is a confusing move, which seems to achieve little apart from adding to the uncertainty for overseas doctors in the NHS."
  3. Thorn

    Thorn Guest

    The Competent Authority Model was recently introduced in NSW as important step forward to address the shortage of medicos in Australia, particularly in rural and regional area.

    Initially it could work but once the overseas trained doctors have secured their Fellowship, Residency and Medicare provider number they will flee to the city and private practice.
  4. OTD

    OTD Guest

    The argument over the 'Competent Authority' model is good but it is prevailed over by a Commonwealt Act, the Healthcare Insurance Act 1973.

    The 'competent authority' model had been proposed via the AMC which is a non statutory body advising State medical boards and which are being used as an extra layer of bureaucracy by the Colleges. Hence, it has little statutory standing except via various State medical acts.

    At the end of the day, for reimbursement pursposes (ie a doctor's salary), it is the Healthcare Insurance Act 1973 which reigns supreme.

    This is discussed in another thread on "Thinking of coming to Australia"?

    Happy browsing!
  5. OTD

    OTD Guest

    I forgot to add:

    One may be registered by a state as a medical practitioner and recognised by a college as a Specialist, but, if one does not have a valid provider number, how does one earn one's living? 8)
  6. Gabriela

    Gabriela Guest


    You know that doctors lived here before Medicare was introduced. They've charged their services through Private Health Insurance or cash. The same way we are paying plumbers, dentists or lawyers.

    I guess it is not going to be the end of the word for consumers ( patients) or service providers ( doctors & nurses & paramedics ) even if Medicare is scrapped. For example, most Americans (59.7%), receive their health insurance coverage through an employer, although this percentage is declining.The US government subsidizes employer-paid health care by exempting employer contributions from taxation as income.

    The doctors can survive without Medicare, I am sure, but politicians - no way.

  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    AMC will cease to exist within three year

    Understandably the aussie doctors are not happy with the proposed changes regarding registration.
    The AMC will cease ( hopefully) to exist within 3 years.
    Read the article.

    National Registration and AccreditationIntergovernmental Agreement for a National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions (the scheme)

    The purpose of this document is to inform all doctors about the scheme agreed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on 26 March 2008.


    COAG has been developing a scheme for National Registration and Accreditation for some two years. The AMA has urged governments to implement a rational and effective registration system: one that would facilitate the transfer of medical practitioners’ registration to enable movement across the country. COAG has incorporated the regulation of both registration and accreditation into their scheme. This was not part of the AMA proposals.

    Throughout the COAG process, the AMA has consistently engaged and made clear its significant concerns with regard to the efficiency and complexity of the proposed system and its extension into possible control of medical practice and competency standards and accreditation of medical education and training courses. What has evolved appears to be a complex bureaucratic arrangement that is cumbersome and expensive. It places the setting of standards for the medical profession into a political and bureaucratic regulatory environment. The scheme is underpinned by a workforce reform agenda.

    The Intergovernmental Agreement (the IGA) sets out the structure and functions of the scheme. The IGA can be accessed at:


    A snapshot of the scheme, with references to the relevant clauses in the IGA appears at the end of this document.

    On 26 March 2008, the AMA and the Committee of Presidents of Medical Colleges (CPMC) presented the Prime Minister with five principles for medical registration and accreditation:

    National recognition of registration;
    A publicly-available national register;
    Uniform registration and disciplinary functions by local boards;
    Independent accreditation of medical education and training; and
    Professional standards set by independent bodies.
    The signing of the IGA has brought focus on three critical issues for the medical profession: dealing with “rogue†doctors, medical registration and medical standards.

    We believe there is an ethical obligation on medical practitioners to report suspected misconduct. The AMA is always appalled by acts of gross misconduct by individual doctors. We will work with governments to ensure that strong action is taken against the very small number of doctors who cause their patients harm. To do this requires a different approach outside the scheme. The answer to this particular issue does not lie in registration arrangements per se.

    The AMA is concerned that the complex structure of the proposal in the IGA may compromise the ability to respond rapidly to cases of “rogue†doctors and we would be keen to work towards implementing a system which improves effective reporting and action.

    The AMA supports national recognition of registration for the medical profession. The AMA wants harmonised registration and a public national register. The public must have registered, safe, quality doctors who can work when and where they are needed.

    Medical standards
    Accreditation of medical education and training in Australia is founded in its independence from government, the medical schools and the medical profession. Australia’s current framework meets international guidelines1. The AMA has consistently supported and reinforced the independence of this framework during the debate of the past two years on the scheme.

    The COAG scheme removes the independence of accreditation of medical education and training by putting the approval of accreditation standards in the hands of Health Ministers.

    Medical Colleges determine medical practice and competency standards. Accredited medical specialty education and training programs ensure that doctors acquire the requisite knowledge, skills, competencies and professional qualities to undertake unsupervised comprehensive medical practice.

    Under the COAG scheme, Health Ministers will approve medical practice and competency standards and they will have to take advice from the Australian Health Workforce Advisory Council2.

    The COAG scheme
    The scheme will merge the registration and accreditation functions for all health professions into a single national agency. This agency will report to the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council (AHWMC), which will approve registration, practice, competency and accreditation standards and continuing professional development requirements3. The AHWMC must take advice from a workforce advisory council on any matters that it sees fit4. There is no guarantee the workforce advisory council will have medical representation.

    What role will this advisory council have in the setting of medical standards?

    The AMA is concerned that medical practice and competency standards and accreditation standards for medical education and training will be determined on the basis of advice that has little or no medical input.

    The “National Registration and Accreditation Scheme†is not just about registration and accreditation. There is a much broader agenda for workforce reform and regulation. The scheme will operate under the principle that the practice of a profession will only be restricted where the benefits of the restriction outweigh the costs5. What parameters or criteria will be used to determine this cost benefit analysis? Patient safety and quality of care must be taken into account.

    Will the scheme result in the blending of medical practitioner standards into standards for other health practitioners as a means to satisfying workforce shortages? This will threaten to lower the standards for the delivery of health care in Australia and risk the safety and quality of that care.

    COAG would need to explain this broader agenda to the Australian public.

    Medical Boards in each jurisdiction will cease to exist6. The Australian Medical Council (AMC) will cease to exist in its current configuration7 and its long-term existence is threatened in the three-year review8. From the framework described in the IGA, in the transition period, the AHWMC will assign accreditation functions to existing accreditation bodies, but with the loss of the independence of their function. There is no guarantee the AMC will be assigned the function of accrediting medical education and training courses.

    There is no provision in the IGA for assigning the function of developing medical practice and competency standards to existing bodies currently performing that function. There is no guarantee that the Medical Colleges will have any role in setting medical practice and competency standards.

    As a precursor to COAG signing the IGA, the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing argued a national scheme would ensure higher standards of patient care and prevent rogue doctors from slipping through the cracks9.

    The AMA does not believe that this particular issue is addressed by the new registration arrangements, nor that existing medical registration arrangements contributed to recent cases.

    If restrictions on practice are not observed, any system (local or national) will fail. How will the COAG scheme ensure that doctors with restrictions on practice comply? The AMA is concerned that a more centralised national scheme may widen the cracks.

    A different approach is required to deal with “rogue†doctors.

    The public may be better protected from “rogue†doctors if a legal mechanism is implemented that encourages reporting through provisions that protect medical practitioners who report doctors who may be guilty of gross misconduct or gross negligence and for those reports to be investigated quickly and judiciously.

    Such a system could be implemented with minimal bureaucracy, to provide a rapid response to incidents of “rogue†doctors. The measure taken by the NSW Government appears to address this issue.

    Under the scheme, State and Territory entities (eg State Administrative Tribunals) will hear the serious disciplinary matters and appeals on the less serious matters on referral from the national entities. Is that relationship legally possible? The AMA is concerned that determinations on serious disciplinary matters may not withstand legal challenge.

    Will the scheme achieve its objectives?
    It is disappointing that there has been no explanation by Australian governments about the merits of the scheme. While it is based on recommendations in the Productivity Commission report Australia’s Health Workforce December 2005, there has been no critical evaluation of those recommendations and their impact on health outcomes.

    The IGA provides the following objectives for the scheme10:

    Protection of the public;
    Workforce mobility;
    Reduction of red tape;
    High-quality education and training;
    Rigorous assessment of overseas trained practitioners;
    Promotion of access to health services;
    A flexible, responsive and sustainable workforce; and
    Innovation in education and service delivery.
    The AMA supports the first five of these objectives in principle, although there are some questions around how the scheme will achieve them. The AMA notes that existing registration and accreditation arrangements already deliver these objectives.

    Protection of the Public
    Patient safety is paramount, and demonstrably the most important objective behind registration and accreditation processes. Will the elected politicians and the bureaucracy who intend to develop and set the standards put high quality outcomes and patient protection before workforce considerations?

    The AMA is concerned that a workforce reform agenda and/or a desire to place practitioners to fill workforce shortages will take precedence.

    Workforce mobility
    A flexible, responsive and sustainable workforce must not compromise standards. How will the objective of workforce mobility be balanced against ensuring Australians have equal access to high standards of medical care? The AMA is concerned that registration standards will be lowered to allow jurisdictions to place medical practitioners in areas of workforce shortages.

    Reducing Red Tape
    The reduction in red tape is not apparent from the IGA, particularly in light of the additional layers of bureaucracy within the scheme. The framework described will be more expensive to maintain than the medical registration and accreditation systems in place now. How will the scheme reduce red tape? The AMA is concerned that the additional layers of bureaucracy will add to red tape.

    The scheme will be self-funding11, with the costs of the scheme being passed on to health professions12. The AHWMC can intervene on budgets and fees13. Will medical practitioners be paying higher registration and accreditation fees to support the scheme? If so, this will mean the costs of medical practice will increase and inevitably these costs will be passed on to consumers.

    Rigorous assessment of overseas trained practitioners
    It is not clear from the IGA whether the assessment of overseas trained practitioners will be more or less rigorous than Australian trained practitioners. Neither is it clear whether overseas trained practitioners will have less restriction on their practice when they are being placed in an area of workforce shortage.

    Quality of education and training
    Australia prides itself on having a world-class health system. This is because the quality of Australian medical education and training is world-class. Australian trained doctors are highly regarded. This has been achieved through the activities of the independent, expert body for accrediting medical education and training, the AMC.

    The AMA asks whether the standing of our training is put at risk with the dismantling of current arrangements and making the AMC dependent under a National Medical Board, a National Agency and an Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council?

    What is the reason to dismantle the independent processes and replace them with a government body that also has the responsibility for the accreditation of education and training for eight other health professionals?

    Both actions fall short of the international standards. Accreditation of medical education and training in Australia must continue to meet international guidelines.

    Will putting the accreditation of medical education and training in the hands of elected politicians and the bureacracy improve the quality of medical education and training?

    As already noted, the IGA is completely silent on the role of Medical Colleges continuing to develop medical practice and competency standards.

    What is the future of the Medical Colleges? The AMA is concerned that the Medical Colleges will be relegated to an education and training delivery role only. Moreover, the AMA is concerned that the Medical Colleges could be completely sidelined as has become the scenario in Britain.

    Under the COAG scheme, the National Medical Profession Board will manage the development of practice and competency standards and continuing professional development requirements14, yet there is no provision for how these standards will be developed.

    Local and national committees will be established to undertake functions in relation to registration, investigation of conduct, competence or impairment matters, conduct of disciplinary hearings, course of study accreditation and assessment of overseas trained practitioners15. Yet no provision has been made for an organisation to set medical practice and competency standards. Which bodies will undertake this function?

    The AMA is concerned that the role of the Medical Colleges has been lost in the development of the COAG scheme.

    The remaining objectives
    In respect of the last three stated objectives, the AMA has the following questions:

    To what extent, and through what mechanism, will registration and accreditation processes promote access to health services?
    Can a flexible, responsive and sustainable workforce be achieved without compromising the high standards we have now?
    Will innovation in education and service delivery be shown to work effectively and without risk to patients before they are incorporated into standards?
    As it stands, the IGA has merged registration, accreditation and workforce planning. There are many questions produced by the IGA’s framework. As previously stated the AMA is not calling for the status quo with registration and certainly will support better processes to identify and deal with “rogue†doctors.

    The AMA also recognises the demand pressures on the health system and the consequence challenges for the workforce.

    The demand for health care in Australia continues to rise. The population is ageing and the prevalence of chronic disease and disability is increasing. With demand exceeding supply, governments will seek policies to correct the imbalance. COAG has sought to blend registration and accreditation, with the effect of lowering the health professional standards to address the demand for supply.

    This approach is based around the idea that the different health professions are close substitutes for each other. This is not the case at all. On the contrary, the various health professions have roles and responsibilities that are complementary to each other. High quality health care requires very strong teamwork with each profession enabled to do what they do best. Doctors have a very sharp appreciation of the impact on health outcomes that can be achieved through the skills and efforts of para-medical health professionals.

    Does the scheme seek to address medical shortages by allowing lesser-trained professionals to fill medical workforce shortages? As it is written, the AMA can only assume the predominant workforce reform agenda will facilitate other health professionals providing service for which they are inadequately trained.

    When Australians get sick they need to and want to see a doctor. The introduction of the scheme must not take priority over the introduction of policies to address the shortage of Australian trained doctors.

    Australia needs strategies to:

    Encourage Australian trained doctors to remain in the workforce;
    Provide adequate funding for training places for the number of medical students about to graduate; and
    Undertake proper and rigorous workforce planning to avoid the over and under correction policies of the past.
    As medical professionals there is no justification for an abrogation of clinical responsibility. Therefore, when addressing health workforce planning concerns the AMA will always engage solutions from the stance that clinical leadership involves delegation of tasks and the supervision of clinical outcomes. This is already a proven and prudent professional duty. Multidisciplinary teams and collaborative working partnerships already characterise contemporary health services. The AMA will embrace any progressive planning challenges based on these principles.

    The IGA is in the implementation phase. The Federal Health Minister has accepted the AMA’s offer to be actively involved in the detail and implementation of administrative arrangements so that medical standards can be safeguarded and doctors can have a rational process of registration.

    The AMA is determined to work with governments on implementation to resolve our questions and the others that will arise.

    April 2008
  8. It seems to me it that the medical boards and AMC will cease to exist soon.

    How this will affect the prospective candidates ? Who will then conduct the exams ?
    Is it going to be better or worse than current arrangments ?
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    introduce an uniform , non-disriminatory national medical standard like USMLE in USA
  10. Jaqeuy

    Jaqeuy Guest

    Hurry up.......time for registration is running out

    Once they got the numbers they'll change the current law and introduce much tougher rule for the registration.

    Until 2000, the pass rate for the AMC was about 35% - believe or not. Exam was held twice a year and it was a waiting list for the clinical exam stretching almost to two years.

    This is the window of opportunity to registrer as doctor here while socialist Labour Goverment is in the power.
    When Liberals are back they'll scrap all these provisions for the registration.

  11. bb11

    bb11 Guest


    skee, did you talk to the amc? what did they tell you?
  12. Jante

    Jante Guest

    registar amc

    :roll: hi, anyone, can give me the information.im a doctor graduate from indonesia do you think the amc recognize and allowed me to take the mcq exam. Only for registar we need to pay expensive and if the AMC did not recognize our primary certificate,its like waste money.
  13. Gunewardana

    Gunewardana Guest

    AMC exams

    I just thought I would clarify the 'race' issue brought up as part of the argument against the AMC competent authority model (CAM). I am a UK graduate but am originally of South Asian descent. I do qualify for the CAM. Therefore this is NOT a race issue. I understand how it looks but I appreciate that the Aussies may prefer graduates who are equally knowlegeable to their own graduates but also have an appreciation and understanding of anglosaxon culture and values. I'm sure the transition is much easier for these IMG and therefore perhaps that fact should not be overlooked.
    With regard to the Local 'Aussie doctor's views...I think the question should be about overturning the ruling that Aussie graduates should need to pass the UK exams. Lets all stop messing around and say it like it is. Its all about income protection against ANY bloody foreigners right? At leat in the UK we're not in the money making business. What I'm furious about is the having to practice in the outback for 10years if your an IMG business. That is DEFINITELY descriminatory and is all about income protection.

    As for paying back HECS money, I have to pay back my loan too. Look at it this way Australia gains a UK graduate that it didn't have to shell out 0.5 million dollars to train over 6 years AND they get to make money out of the CAM and AMC process into the bargain! You could argue the reverse against the NHS, but lets face it...who wants to live in the UK anymore????
  14. Whisper

    Whisper Guest

    A medical examination that's too cruel for words

    Gunewardana ,

    The people have to understand that there is a fierce competition among medical graduates to enter the specialist training in Australia and situation getting worse. However I have to admitt that this is the world wide trend. The best example is UK Goverment who recenly closed the door for all docs outside the EU.

    A medical examination that's too cruel for words
    Dr Tanveer Ahmed
    June 3, 2008

    I have just failed my final examination before being deemed a medical specialist, along with half the people who sat the exam. This is despite each and every candidate being of the highest calibre, then working in the field for several years and undertaking backbreaking preparation for several months.

    A large proportion of the candidates had never failed anything academic before this final hurdle. A considerable number were sitting for the third or fourth time.

    Each had to pay several thousand dollars for the privilege.

    Welcome to the college system of training doctors. It is a system grounded in traditions and old-school philosophies, much of it a throwback to the English guilds of previous centuries. Until recently, the results of these exams were handed to the candidates in the hallowed halls of college buildings.

    A door would then open for those who passed, who were offered a glass of sherry or soft drink, while those who failed were given directions to the nearest taxi rank.

    There are few professional equivalents as archaic. The closest would possibly be the bar association for barristers, but even they have examination pass rates of up to 80 per cent. The market is then free to value their services accordingly.

    If a university course were run where half the students failed, the course would quickly be modified, dropped or there would be an urgent review of the selection processes.

    If a business undertook training of staff for a particular task and later found half to be incapable of doing so, the business would be highly dissatisfied and undertake immediate measures to ensure the vast majority were ready.

    They would have every incentive to do so.

    The colleges have absolutely no incentive to pass anyone. Each and every person who passes represents a new competitor with access to the total pool of fees from specialist services. The same doctors deemed unqualified to practise independently are often doing the work of the specialists within the public hospital system while their bosses are running lucrative private practices.

    The system is a reflection of the many inefficiencies and difficulties of our health system - rule by committees which are unable to respond to consumer needs and changing trends, little "outcomes measurement" and a disabling level of bureaucracy and duplication.

    Last month, just before the 2020 Summit, Dr Bill Glasson, an ophthalmologist and former president of the Australian Medical Association, called for a greater range of health professionals to address the hopeless shortage of workers that our system suffers. This kind of statement would have been a heresy during his days as the AMA boss.

    But it is a reflection that our current system of training health workers simply does not meet the needs of consumers. Nowhere is this more true than with doctors, where it takes a decade and a half to produce independent practitioners who are then grossly overqualified for the relatively routine presentations they deal with each day. And when you consider that despite this and the gross shortage of doctors, that colleges do their best to keep the numbers as low as possible, it is a travesty.

    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has already had multiple dealings with some colleges, particularly the surgeons, who have been forced to amend many of their practices as a result. And this year there has been a submission to the ACCC by a group representing training psychiatrists. If that is not enough, the Productivity Commission is investigating the low pass rates in several colleges.

    As monopolies go, one feels that the number is almost up for this one. Macquarie University is attempting to set up an alternative path for training surgeons, despite huge disapproval from specialist bodies such as the AMA.

    In Britain, the system has been overturned, for many of the reasons stated above.

    While it has been implemented poorly and caused initial chaos, there is widespread agreement in Britain that doctors' training will be shorter, more streamlined and better equipped to deal with the public's needs.

    Any changes here will take time. Meanwhile, I remember what a silver-haired eminent cardiologist said in my final year of university. After a casual teaching session, he gave me a stern look and said: "Son, now that you're almost finished the course, my advice to you is to get out as soon as you can. Things are going from bad to worse and it will be very difficult for you lot. Get out while you can."

    While I shrugged off the comments back then, now that I am demoralised and heavy with resentment, trapped within a public hospital system that utterly devalues me, I feel he was right. I regret not taking his advice.

    Dr.Tanveer Ahmed is a psychiatry registrar.


  15. i passed usmle step-1 and usmle step-2 ck

    dear i passed usmle step-1 and usmle step-2 ck am i exepmpted from AMC-1 ?
  16. DRX

    DRX Guest

    Competent authority

    Wanna hear about my case?

    I got full registration in the UK with exemption from the PLAB or the training. My medical degree is from a south american country, I did 18 months postgraduate training in Germany and I am Italian, and the AMC Won't let me take the competent authority pathway! I mean, I got a job in the UK as a STAFF GRADE in A & E and over here in Australia I am worth nothing....I tried to tell them I was exempted from the PLAB ( I also have an american high school diploma), but no luck......anyone has suggestions other then praying and having to take the MCQ?
  17. Sud13

    Sud13 Guest

    Competent Authority Pathway

    Iam working in Saudi Arabia, i have ful Registra With GMC UK, through
    Passing the plab . I would like to work in Aust. I have mrcp part one and two written .
    I did not work in the UK .
    Do not tell me go to the amc website !!!!!
  18. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Do not be fooled. This is just another bluff to get you to apply to Australia. They are desparate for doctors, and the main reason for this is administrative dysfunction. The small print will tell you that you will be disadvantaged and vulnerable to abuse and unfair treatment. This is widely depicted in this website.
  19. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Certificate of advanced standing though Competent authority

    Hey! I have applied for my certificate of Advanced standing through competent authority pathway.. its been 8 weeks and i still havent heard anything from the AMC. On the website it says the procedure takes 4-6 weeks.
    Upon callin the AMC i was advised it would take a couple of more weeks.
    Can sm1 help me with this:-
    does neone knows how long does it normally take for them to do the assesment for advanced standing?
    Is there neone who already has recieved the certificate of advanced standing?
    Can sm1 tell me as to how long would it take for me to get the certificate of advanced standing?
    please help.... i have totally lost my patience.
  20. Guest

    Guest Guest


    hi sud13, unfortuntely u do not qualify for the CA pathway, co u dont have UK experience. the best thing u could do is work in UK and get that requiremnt. the experience requirement is not specifically to sho/registrar or staff grade, u could be doing anythng.
    best of luck
  21. Moi

    Moi Guest

    Shame upon them

    Hi there

    I graduated from Ireland, and I did my internship in a post approved by Irish medical council which was in Kuwait. According to AMC website you need to be graduated from Ireland And had ur internship either in Ireland or in a post approved by Irish medical council... and hence I was supposed to be eligible for Competent pathway,,, but upon contacting them they said that they did change this in July 2008 but did not change their website.. what a shame!

    take a look on this link under republic of Ireland

  22. asad

    asad Guest


    dr asad from pakistan here..can anybody tell me if somebody who has cleared usmle step 1 & step 2 ck exams, eligible to take the clinical assesment exam for australia???i mean is he exempt from mcq exam of australian medical council.??? waiting for guidance..thanx
  23. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I got a Cerificate of Advanced Standing from the AMC through the Competent Authority Pathway and Special Purpose Registration with the Queensland Medical Board for PHO job in Psychiatry.
    I did my Medical Schooling and Internship in India, did PLAB and worked for 4 years in the UK, and got MRCPsychiatry.
    Can someone clarify this....do I have to do 10 wks each in surg, med, emergency to be eilgible for General Registraion with the QLD Medical Board?
    Dont know how Ill do that coz I got a psychiatry PHO post!
  24. Guest

    Guest Guest


    I have got my advanced standing certificate...now how to apply for work place based assesssment ???

    people who are already in Australia Through this route please assisst me...

  25. MS

    MS Guest

    12 mths training app by GMC - CA Pathway ???

    Hi All,

    I have qualified from India and worked in UK for few years. Have full reg.

    Can someone please tell me what is the '12 months training approved by GMC' being asked for Competent Authority pathway - are they expecting UK internship?

    Really appreciate some info.

  26. FR

    FR Guest


    Dear Friends,
    Australia does not need overseas doctors any more.Their own graduates are in short supply of positions.And they have plenty of practice nurses and they work in place of doctors.You will find plenty of ads for practice nursesbut not the doctors.So do not waste your time seeking jobs in Australia.And wste your money for the AMC exams and they are deliberatly failing the candidates from overseas.
  27. Guest

    Guest Guest

    This is largely true and is corroborated by submissions esp by individuals in the current Parliamentary Inquiry into registration of overseas trained doctors.

    The fact remains that the AMC is a private company; the colleges are all private old boys clubs operating like gambling establishments - and registered as private companies.

    With these two being in control by an invisible mafia which is extremely power and which probably sleeps with others in the Parliament, this country is nothing but a joke.....lucky country? .....nah!

    Dont waste your time aspiring to be a doctor in Oz....be warned, you may ruin your whole career permanently and, it is not easy to undo!

    There are one far too many kangaroo courts in Oz too!

Share This Page