The GMC reports on training at CMFT

GMC-1Last year we had the pleasure of meeting the GMC when they visited the NW region. Our visit was part of a wider process looking at medical education across the North West and at all stages from undergraduate through to postgraduate training.

All stages of the process are described in this glossy document

Although the visits took place last year it is only now that the full reports have been released online and they are freely available to everyone. The GMC have a policy of disclosure so trainees, trainers, the public and press get to see what was written about us and about the quality of training across the NW in general.


Well, we can all do better as they say, but in all honesty the region and the trust gets a good report. We had one area of good practice highlighted (skills teaching for undergraduates) and five requirements relating to induction, workload for CMT trainees, the organisation of year 4,  the use of the SHO nomenclature and time in job plans for trainers.

Regionally there are themes of workload intensity, lack of time for training and clinical supervision and career advice. The summary document sets these out well and identifies where problems were found across the region. It’s a short but informative document which may be worth sharing with clinical and management colleagues as they can be used as tools for change and support to clinical education here at CMFT.

You can (and should) read the full report about training here together with our response to the GMC

On the same site you will find the reports for Manchester medical school and the wider NW deanery. Again, for those with an interest in the organisation and delivery of training these are useful reading to see what’s going on across the region.

It’s always interesting to read what the regulator thinks about training. They obviously have a huge influence on current and future training patterns and as those of you at the recent educators conference know, change is inevitable and may be quite radical.

My only concern with the report is that the GMC only looked at a few small elements of postgraduate training here at CMFT and that’s a shame as we did not get that much of an opportunity to showcase what we do well. I think this is a consequence  of the GMC’s policy of targeting visits to areas where they believe there may be concerns, but it is a bit of a shame. We all like our report cards to have lots of positives as well as areas of improvement.

I hope you find the reports interesting and valuable.