National intern allocation: the junior doctor perspective

2. National intern allocation: the junior doctor perspective Rick Fielke, Jake Parker, Rob Mitchell, Andrew Perry & Michael Bonning Council of Doctors-in-Training Australian Medical Association 16th Australasian Prevocational Medical Education Forum 7 November 2011 Auckland, New Zealand

3. Outline • AMA Council of Doctors-in-Training • Why consider a national intern allocation process • The existing process • Consultation • The proposed model • Requirements • Potential benefits • Potential disadvantages • Where to from here

4. AMA Council of Doctors-in-Training • AMA’s representative group for Doctors-in-Training • Representation from all states and territories • Representation from students through to advanced trainees • Areas of focus: • Education and training • Health workforce • Doctors’ health and wellbeing • E-Health

5. Why consider a NIA process? • The changing prevocational training landscape: • National registration • Increasing medical graduate numbers • Increasing competition for internship positions and supply and demand mismatches in different jurisdictions • A need for increased efficiency, flexibility and certainty in the intern allocation process • Progress made by the CPMEC National Intern Allocation Working Party • Trainee feedback from CPMEC audit

6. The existing process • Prospective interns apply to individual jurisdictions • National alignment of opening and closing dates • Differing selection and allocation models between jurisdictions • CPMEC conduct a national audit of offers and duplicate acceptances

7. Consultation • Development of key principles guiding a NIA process • Provided to state AMA junior doctor committees, AJMOC and AMSA for consideration and feedback • Formulation of a draft AMA position statement • Further consultation with stakeholders • Approval by AMACDT and AMA Federal Council

8. The proposed model • Single entry and exit point • Development of an online portal, managed by a designated agency • Continued ability to apply to multiple jurisdictions • Individual jurisdictions determine offers for their state or territory • A single offer per state • Offers and acceptances managed through the portal

9. The proposed model Applicant online portal Jurisdiction 1 Jurisdiction 3 Jurisdiction 2 Jurisdiction 4 online portal All jurisdictional offers made Applicant accepts offer from Jurisdiction 2 Online portal feedbacks outcome to jurisdictions

10. Requirements • Harmonisation of timing and rounds • Agreed minimum data-set • Funding model - no cost for trainees • Capacity to accommodate paired applications • Nationally consistent definitions • Nationally consistent priority groupings for allocation?

11. Potential benefits • To trainees: • Single entry point • Reduction in duplication of documentation requirements • Increased job security • Transparency • To jurisdictions and health services: • No multiple acceptances by candidates • Increased workforce certainty • Better quality data about applicants and positions • Maintained jurisdictional autonomy of process • Cost savings

12. Potential disadvantages • To trainees: • Reduction in “fair trade” of services • Impact on flexibility? • To jurisdictions and health services: • Transition of information technology • Change to current work practices • Set-up costs

13. Where to from here • Jurisdictional agreement • Identification of funding source • Implementation plan

14. Acknowledgements • Fellow Authors • AMA secretariat, in particular Sally Cross • CPMEC National Intern Allocation Working Party • CETI www.ama.com.au/dit