You are here: Home > Representing doctors and medical students > Branch of practice committees > Medical Academics
Medical Academic Staff Committee minutes
Friday 21 September 2007 at 10.00am
Meeting held at the British Medical Association, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JP
Induction 9.30-10.00am
Present: Dr Anita Holdcroft (Co-Chair), Mr David Adams, Mr Nicholas Black, Dr Greg Dilliway, Dr Mark Gabbay, Dr Ross Hobson, Professor David Katz, Dr Caroline Methuen, Dr Minha Rajput Ray, Dr Sumantra Ray, Professor Geraint Rees, Professor Michael Rees (Co-Chair), Dr Mourad Seif.
Professor Ed Hilhouse for item 19
In Attendance: Sally Girgis, Jane Daniels, Erin Dean.
(Meeting chaired by Dr Holdcroft)
Administration and constitutional issues
1. Notice of Appointment of, And Reference to, the Committee
(Agenda Item 1 and Supplementary Agenda item 29)
Received:
i) Notice of appointment of, and reference to, the Committee (extract from the Articles and Bye-laws of the British Medical Association).
ii) Report that the membership of the Committee for the session 2007-2008 was approved at the first meeting of the committee following COMAR.
Confirmed: Constitution of the Committee amended to reflect the changes made to the Bye-Laws of the association following the ARM in June; other minor amendments were confirmed.
An updated document containing the membership of the committee was tabled.
The constitution was amended to incorporate changes to the Articles and Bye Laws of the association made at the ARM which allowed for Co-Chairing of Branch of Practice Committees. The committee was informed that the constitution currently did not provide for minimum representation from devolved nations. It was agreed that MASC Executive Subcommittee should undertake further work on the constitution to ensure that it was fit for purpose.
2. Co-Chairs and Deputy Chairs
(Agenda Item 2)
Received:
i) Report that, in accordance with the constitution, Anita Holdcroft and Michael Rees were appointed Chair/Vice Chair for the session 2007-2008 on 4 May 2007 at the first meeting of MASC following the Conference of Medical Academic Representatives 2007. Following the amendment to the bye-laws of the association and subsequent amendment to the MASC constitution, it was noted they were both Co-Chairs of Committee.
ii) Report that in accordance with the constitution, Peter Dangerfield and Geraint Rees were appointed Deputy Chairs for the 2007-2008 session on 4 May 2007 at the first meeting of the MASC following the Conference of Medical Academic Representatives 2007.
It was explained that Michael Rees would chair meetings of the MASC Executive Subcommittee and Anita Holdcroft would chair meetings of MASC. Weekly teleconferences were being held between the Co-Chairs and the secretariat and the two would alternate their attendance at the regular Chairman of Council meetings with branch of practice Chairs.
3. Co-Opted Members
(Agenda Item 3)
Received:
i) Report that the Committee may make up to three co-options in order to ensure that the full range of medical academic practice is represented.
ii) Report that Bharat Jasani could be co-opted to the committee in his capacity of Chair of Welsh MASC;
iii) Report that a member of the Society of Academic Foundation Trainees (SAFT) was co-opted throughout the 2006-2007 session.
Considered:
i) Co-options to the committee for the 2007-08 session.
ii) Proposal that a member of the SAFT be co-opted to the committee
iii) Proposal that an academic member of the BMA’s Committee on Public Health Medicine and Community Health (CPHMPH) be co-opted to the Committee.
iv) Proposal that Bharat Jasani be co-opted to the Committee
v) Proposal that an academic member of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges be co-opted to the committee
It was noted that the Chairman of Welsh MASC was not a constitutional member of MASC 2007-2008 and it was suggested that he could be co-opted to the committee for the coming session. The committee was in agreement that the Chairman of Welsh MASC be co-opted to the committee.
The committee discussed other possible co-options. It was explained that anyone co-opted to the committee would have full voting rights. It was suggested that a representative of SAFT be co-opted to the committee as they had previously made significant contributions to the committee and continued input would be useful.
The committee agreed that a representative of the Academy of Medical Sciences would provide valuable input to the committee.
Resolved: That the Chairman of Welsh MASC, the SAFT and the AMS be invited as co-opted members of the committee.
4. Observers
(Agenda Item 4)
Received:
i) Report that in order to further promote co-ordination of activities within the BMA, the current Chair of the Board of Science’s Medical Education Subcommittee has been invited to attend meetings of the Committee as an observer.
ii) Report that the Medical Women’s Federation (MWF) has been invited to send a representative to the MASC in the light of the current work being done by the Committee on promoting access to medical academic careers for women.
iii) Report that the Conference of Postgraduate Medical Education Deans (COPMED) has been invited to send a Postgraduate Dean to observe MASC in light of the Committee’s ongoing interest in academic training issues.
Considered:
i) Report that the Committee may wish to invite a relevant person from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), given its role in delivering health research in the NHS and appointing members to its Faculty as an observer to the Committee.
ii) Report that the Committee may wish to invite a member of the Medical Schools Council (MSC - previously the Council of Heads of Medical Schools) as an observer to the Committee.
The committee was informed that, within reason and budgetary constraints, further non-voting observers could be invited to the committee. Further suggestions for observers included:
- A representative from the Society of Academic Primary Care (SAPC). It was agreed that the SAPC should be invited as an observer.
- A member of the BMA’s CPHMPH. It was agreed that the CPHMPH should be invited to observe the committee.
- A representative from the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC). It was noted that previous attempts to engage with the UKCRC on a regular basis had proved unsuccessful.
- A representative from the NIHR.
- The Medical Schools Council (MSC). The committee noted that the Medical Schools Council used to share papers with the MASC, however recently the arrangement had not been reciprocal. The committee questioned whether they should seek to reinstate this arrangement.
Resolved:
i) That the SAPC and the BMA CPHPH be invited as observers to the Committee.
ii) That consideration of whether the UKCRC, the NIHR and the MSC should be observers to the committee be remitted to the Executive Subcommittee.
5. MASC Executive Subcommittee
(Agenda Item 5)
Received: Report that three members of the Executive Subcommittee are appointed from the MASC.
The committee noted that following a postal election Martyn Bracewell, Mark Gabbay and David Katz had been elected to sit on the Executive Subcommittee. Sumantra Ray would be deputy in the event that any could members not attend the meetings of the subcommittee.
6. MASC Representatives on other BMA Committees
(Agenda Item 6)
Received: Appointment of representatives and deputies to serve on BMA Committees for the 2007 - 2008 session.
Considered: Report that representatives on BMA Committees are encouraged to provide to the Committee with written reports of the meetings attended within five working days. Reports will be taken as receive items in the next MASC agenda unless an action is indicated.
Appendix 3 to the agenda was withdrawn from the meeting and a further document listing the committees to which the MASC appointed representatives was circulated. Members were asked to nominate themselves during the meeting. It was noted that the list of BMA Committees would be circulated on the MASC Listserver to ensure that members not present at the meeting could nominate themselves as a representative to a committee. For any imminent meetings the representative from 2006-07 would attend.
Action: Secretariat to circulate on the MASC listserver the updated list of committees to which MASC sends representatives.
7. Attendance and Childcare Expenses for BMA Meetings
(Agenda Item 7)
Received: The BMA policy for reimbursing members travel and subsistence and childcare expenses incurred as a result of attendance at BMA meetings (MASC 27, 2007-2008).
8. Defamation
(Agenda Item 8)
Received: Memorandum on defamation prepared by the Legal Department; it is a condition of the Association’s libel policy that the memorandum is circulated to craft committee members.
9. Terms and Conditions of use of BMA Listservers
(Agenda Item 9)
Received:
i) Report that, in line with BMA policy, committee members must sign up to the Terms and Conditions of use of BMA listservers;
ii) Terms and Conditions of use of BMA listservers (MASC28 2007-2008).
10. Apologies
(Agenda Item 10)
Received: Apologies were received from Philip Belcher, Martyn Bracewell, Christine Burness, Ken Checinski, Peter Dangerfield, Mohamed El-Sheemy, Bharat Jasani, John Xuereb. BMA officers: Peter Bennie and David Pickersgill.
11. Minutes
(Agenda Item 11)
Confirmed: The Minutes of the meeting of MASC held on 4 May 2007 (MASC94, 2006-2007).
Received:
i) The confirmed minutes of the meeting of the MASC Executive Subcommittee held on 15 June 2007 (MASC117 2006-2007);
ii) The unconfirmed minutes of the meeting of the MASC Executive Subcommittee held on 31 August 2007 (MASC 2, 2007-2008);
iii) Summary of the MASC away day held on 15 June 2007 in Edinburgh (MASC129 2006-2007).
The committee discussed the arrangements for the Executive Subcommittee away day in 2008. It was agreed that the away day would not be held on the same day as a meeting of the executive subcommittee.
12. Matters Arising
(Agenda Item 12)
Considered: Matters arising from the Minutes not covered elsewhere on the Agenda.
Minute 65 (b) - Good University Employment Guide
The committee was informed that Tania Fisher from the BMA’s Health Policy and Economic Research Unit had attended the last meeting of the Executive Subcommittee to develop revisions to the proforma for the next edition of the Guide.
Minute 58 - MMC MTAS and Academic Training
Concern was expressed that academic trainees did not know which trusts were good employers. It was noted that the MASC had called for job descriptions for each ACF post to be produced and that this had been agreed. In addition, the Department of Health (DH) had commissioned research into the long term outcomes of ACF posts which would provide valuable information about the experience at different host partnerships. It was suggested that MASC could have some input into the commissioning of research outcomes.
Action: That the Good University Employment Guide proforma be circulated for comments on the MASC Listserver.
13. Chair’s Report
(Agenda Item 13)
Received: Report from the Co-Chairs of the Committee.
Anita Holdcroft reported Hamish Meldrum had been elected the Chairman of Council and Kate Bullen had been elected Deputy Chairman of Council. Anita Holdcroft advised that the BMA had produced guidance on Business Support, copies of which were circulated at the meeting.
Michael Rees reported that he had undertaken further work on negotiating issues and considered that work with both ACCEA and UCEA was becoming ever more important.
14. Reports from National Masc
(Agenda Item 14)
Received:
i) Oral report from the Scottish MASC;
ii) Oral report from the Welsh MASC;
iii) Oral report from the Northern Ireland MASC.
SMASC: Report deferred in the absence of Phillip Belcher.
WMASC: Michael Rees (in the absence of Bharat Jasani) reported that the possibility of Swansea becoming a separate medical school from the University of Wales in Cardiff was still under consideration, although the Chief Medical Officer (England) had stated that the number of medical students produced by Wales “was the business of Wales”.
NIMASC: David Adams advised that he had been re-elected Chairman of Northern Ireland MASC. A conference was planned for 12 October 2007.
Number of UK medical students and workforce planning
The committee had an unscheduled discussion on issues around the number of medical students being produced within the UK and its relationship to current and future workforce planning.
It was accepted that there was a shortage of clinical staff to provide healthcare around the world and it was suggested that if the UK was producing an excess of well trained doctors, one option was for these doctors to provide healthcare to other countries. This approach could make a positive contribution so long as work abroad could be made into a viable career option; for example, qualifications achieved abroad were recognized on return to the UK. However, the experience of many doctors returning to the UK after working overseas was not recognised and the doctors had to re-enter training at a lower level.
It was reported that there had been a discussion within the BMA calling for the number of medical students to be reduced in order to avoid the production of too many fully trained doctors without enough consultant posts being available. Members felt a more in depth debate was required because it was important to ensure that the country was producing the best graduates possible. Further, manpower planning was not only the responsibility of the department of health but also of HEFCE (or devolved nation equivalents) especially through the latter’s funding to universities for medical school places.
It was also noted that the BMA as a trade union was duty bound to protect members’ jobs, and this should be the focus of policy. It was noted that after 2007 MMC recruitment was completed, there would be approximately 3800 UK graduates without training posts. It was thought the real competition was from applicants from the European Economic Area as well as displacement from staff grade doctors, all of whom applied for specialty training in large numbers in 2007.
Resolved: That the committee believes that pursuing a policy of reducing the number of medical students would not address the current issues facing trainees and the focus of the Association‘s policy should be on producing medical graduates of the highest calibre. That the committee should seek for the Association to carry out more detailed consideration of workforce planning issues through the regular Chairman of Council meetings and the BMA Cross Craft Group on MMC.
Action: Representatives at Chair of Council and BMA Cross Craft Group on MMC push for fuller consideration of the issue.
15. MASC Strategy
(Agenda Item 15)
Considered: Draft MASC Strategy paper for activity during the 2007-08 session, which was produced following the Executive Subcommittee away day in June 2007 (MASC 3 2007-2008).
The committee approved the draft strategy. Members were asked to consider taking the lead on any of the identified policy areas within the strategy. It was noted that newsletters would be produced and circulated following meetings of the MASC and the MASC Executive Subcommittee.
Action: Members of MASC to advise the secretariat of the areas of the strategy they wished to focus on.
ITEMS RELATING TO POLICY
16. Integrated Academic Training Pathway
(Agenda Item 16 and Supplementary Agenda item 30)
Received:
i) Oral update from Michael Rees
ii) Oral report from Geraint Rees on his meeting with Sarah Fox (DH Research & Development Workforce) and Liz Baucher (Department of Health Education and Training Branch) on 12 September 2007;
iii) Letter sent to Sally Davies (Director General of DH R&D) (31 07 07) regarding Integrated Academic Training Pathways;
iv) Response from Sally Davies (28 08 07).
v) The MASC response to the Tooke inquiry into MMC ‘Clinical Academic Training: a lost opportunity’ (MASC 29 2007-2008);
vi) Flyer promoting the Committee’s Academic Trainees Conference scheduled for 17 November 2007.
(Supplementary agenda item 30)
Received:
viii) Letter from Michael Rees published in the Financial Times on 05 09 07;
ix) Report that Lisa Cotterill has invited a representative from the BMA to join a DH R&D ‘Task and Finish Group’ to ensure that the administration of the 2008 round of recruitment of Academic Clinical Fellows is efficient and effective.
Considered:
i) Issues arising from the process for recruitment to Academic Clinical Fellowships (ACF) in 2008 proposed by the DH National Coordinating Centre for Research Capacity and Development (NCCRCD) (MASC30 2007-2008).
(Supplementary agenda item 30)
Considered:
ii) Report that the Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS) has been working with the postgraduate deans, Modernising Medical Careers and the National Coordinating Centre for Research Capacity and Development (NCCRCD) to formulate supplementary guidelines to assist trainees, supervisors and assessors in reviewing academic training and progress during the specialty years;
iii) The Committee’s views on the draft Supplementary Guidelines for the Annual Review of Competence Progression for Specialty Registrars undertaking joint clinical and academic training programmes, as requested by the Academy of Medical Sciences (MASC 47 2007-2008).
Round 3 ACF allocations
The committee heard that a compressed timeframe was operating for host institutions to submit bids for further academic training programmes in round three; it was anticipated that most of the programmes that would be supported were those associated with the NIHR and the biomedical research centres.
2008 ACF recruitment
Geraint Rees informed the committee that he was concerned that the Integrated Academic Training Scheme (ITAS) could be a failure unless both the arrangements for and take up rate in 2008 were significantly improved. It was noted that in 2007, recruitment to ACF posts had not been successful with fill rates of 57% at the end of round two. Given the low fill rate was across specialties and regions, this was an indication that it was a serious error to have included ACFs in the failed MTAS process. The committee heard that the DH had placed an advert in the BMJ, without consulting the MASC, which stated that the fifty unfilled ACF posts would be re-advertised in open competition.
The committee noted that Geraint Rees was BMA representative on the English DH MMC Programme Board. The programme board had approved the recommendation that 2008 academic recruitment be split out from the clinical recruitment process and run ahead of clinical recruitment. Neither Sally Davies or Sarah Fox would be able to attend any Programme Board meetings until 23 November 2007, which was around the same time as 2008 ACF recruitment was due to begin. In the meantime, a letter was being written by the Programme Board to request information about the governance arrangements of the ITAS.
Concern was expressed that the process was on the verge of becoming unhinged, especially as there appeared to be little communication between DH MMC and DH R&D. It was felt that although there were positive aspects to recruitment taking place throughout November and December (primarily that it was in advance of the full recruitment process) the short timescale and lack of detail left significant scope for problems. The work of the Task and Finish Group would be crucial in this respect.
Geraint reported that the meeting with Sarah Fox on 12 September had proved useful, and although she had stated that the issues of banding pay were a local matter for Trust, she had been more positive toward joint working on Terms and Conditions of Service, maternity leave and pensions in the medium term.
Academic training conference
The committee noted that 60 delegates had registered for the Academic Trainees conference on 17 November 2007 thus far. It was agreed that information in delegate packs would include FAQs on MASC and an update on the process of recruitment. Letters were being sent to the role models from the BMA report Role Models in Academic Medicine inviting them to the conference.
Resolved: That the committee should continue to actively seek improvements in the recruitment process for ACFs 2008 though the DH R&D Task and Finish group, the MMC Prorgamme Board and other relevant avenues
17. MMC and Selection to Specialty Training
(Agenda Item 17)
Received:
i) Oral Report from Michael Rees and Geraint Rees;
ii) ‘Review of the Medical Training Application Service and Selection Process for 2007 – report of the review group July 2007’ (MASC31 2007-2008);
iii) The BMA response to the Tooke inquiry into MMC (MASC 32 2007-2008);
iv) Terms of reference for the MMC Programme Board (England).
Considered: MMC Programme Board consultation paper ‘MMC England: Proposals for Improvements in 2008 part 1: a fair and reliable selection process and part 2: the offer to applicants’ (MASC 33 2007-2008).
It was noted that publication of the Tooke report would be delayed until 8 October 2007, due to a possible announcement on a general election. This meant that decisions on 2008 recruitment would be made at Programme Board meetings in October and Tooke’s recommendations would be considered by the Programme Board for 2009 recruitment. Issues to be decided for 2008 recruitment included decoupling, multiple entry points and the use of a computerized application system. It was noted that a poll carried out by Remedy UK had indicated that 80-90% of respondents had stated that a computerized application system should not be used. Geraint reported that the suggestion of a national timescale running to a single entry point was not supported by some specialties such anaesthetists because new anaesthesia trainees needed consultant supervision. The subcommittee discussed closed (i.e. run through training) and open competition (i.e. decoupling) and noted that if there was closed entry at ST2, academics returning to specialty training would be disadvantaged. It was agreed that the committee needed to ensure the arrangements for specialty training did not disadvantage returning researchers.
It was noted the BMA would survey the membership and hold a conference after publication of the Tooke report.
Resolved: That Geraint Rees should liaise with other members of the Programme Board to advance the case for returning researchers, whatever system for specialty training is agreed.
18. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
(Agenda Item 18)
Received:
i) Oral report from the secretariat on the first annual conference for NIHR Trainees held on 18-19 September 2007;
ii) Report that a new NIHR Fellowship Scheme will be introduced in October 2007 to replace the previous Personal Awards Scheme (MASC34 2007-2008);
iii) NIHR Implementation Plan 4.1 .d - Bureaucracy busting: Research Passport (MASC 35 2007-2008).
The committee noted a report by on the NIHR trainees’ conference in Birmingham (MASC 51 2007-08). This conference had been held once before but had many more delegates this time because of the introduction of the ACF posts. Flyers for the MASC’s academic training conference on 17 November had also been circulated at the event.
It was agreed that the research passport (MASC 35 2007-08) was a positive development if it reduced duplication of paperwork.
19. Academic Performance Management Project
(Agenda Item 19)
Received:
i) Presentation from Professor Edward Hillhouse, project sponsor and Professor of Medicine and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine and Health, Leeds University scheduled for 12pm. The project aims to capture best practice in the public and private sectors in order to develop and embed a more sustained approach to the academic workforce;
ii) Newsletter for the Performance Management Project (MASC 36 2007-2008).
Considered: Matters arising from Professor Hillhouse’s presentation on performance management and relevant issues.
Professor Hilhouse stated that traditionally performance management was perceived negatively and suggested that the project was an opportunity to influence debate in the sector to the overall advantage of clinical academia. Workshops had already been held with university managers and the project leaders had visited the US and China. Professor Hillhouse suggested that while clinical academics had a tripartite mission and it was important for each academic to deliver in all areas, it was unlikely that every academic would be able to produce first class teaching, research and clinical work. In his view more emphasis should be placed on the collaborative efforts of a team, not making weak appointments and not setting people up to fail. He stated that joint appraisals were not being delivered in the way they should and that job plans were not always clear and balanced. He favoured a balanced scorecard approach and implementing Follett correctly. International comparisons suggested that teaching and research should be integrated into the clinical service and that best practice should focus on developing leadership, mentoring and teams. Further, in the US, appraisals could be tailored to assess, for example, personal (50%), team (30%) team and organizational (20%) achievements.
The committee offered to contribute to the project with regards to incentives offered to academia and to canvas the views of academic staff. Professor Hillhouse advised that he was keen for comments on the project before it was finally submitted and would send a draft of the report to the committee, probably in summer 2008. It was agreed that work on women’s careers would also be included.
Questions to Professor Hillhouse
What were the plans for the Research Matrix and the Education Matrix?
The project was working with companies in the US to investigate how to measure impact. The matrix had been developed as a tool kit which could be applied across the board so that performance could be assessed across the UK. Medical Schools had been asked what they thought made a top class education and how this could be measured. It was felt that student feedback was one of a number of possible tools but that it had limitations because different personalities would affect the outcome.
Were there plans to acknowledge variances between dentists and doctors?
Yes.
How would trainees figure in the measurement of group dynamics without feeling as though they were responsible for a drop in the standard of the group dynamic?
It was acknowledged that you cannot have top class doctors without top class graduates. Thus there will be a different matrix for early career workers and this will be factored into the assessment of the team.
Why were Chinese Medical Schools selected as examples as opposed to schools in India?
China was recommended to the project as the links with the schools were already in place. India and Singapore will be incorporated in the future.
Are there schools which have sought to become excellent and failed to do so but still have a robust structure in place?
This is an issue which is yet to be discussed.
There is a view that the benefits of job planning (which was agreed in negotiations on the clinical academic consultant contract) has disappeared in the run up to the RAE. Do you have a view on that?
Medical schools should concentrate on developing the talent they have rather than buying external talent.
Why make such a comparison with the US when their training system is so different to the UK?
Although the US is a different model it is important to learn from them.
Action:
- Professor Hillhouse to be invited to run a workshop at COMAR 2008.
- Secretariat to seek to establish a meeting with the MSC to discuss incentives.
(Agenda Item 20)
Received:
i) Oral report from Anita Holdcroft on the NHS Leadership Event held on 19 -20 September 2007;
ii) “A proposal to create the UK’s first Academic Health Science Centre” which proposes the merger of Hammersmith Hospitals NHS trust with St Mary’s NHS Trust and integration with Imperial College London.(MASC 37 2007-2008);
iii) “Analysis of public and staff consultation on the creation of the UK’s first Academic Health Science Centre” (MASC 38 2007-2008).
iv) Comparison of outcomes of hospitals with and without associated academic activity (MASC 39 2007-2008);
v) Copy of Sir Ara Darzi’s report “Healthcare for London” (MASC14 2007-2008 – enclosed) and the final BMA response to the report (MASC 40 2007-2008);
Anita Holdcroft advised the group that around 80 key staff from different trusts and the DH had been in attendance at the NHS Leadership event in September. The message was that the DH wanted a patient and clinician-led NHS which was delivered more in the community. It was noted that these events were an opportunity to remind government of the importance of academia across the NHS, including the Academic Health Science Centre model.
It was agreed that academics should attempt to get involved in the regional groups being established at SHA level to deliver Darzi’s Next Steps Review of NHS.
Action: Members of the committee to seek representation on groups being established at SHA level to take forward Darzi – the next steps review.
ITEMS RELATING TO NEGOTIATIONS
21. Clinical Academic Staff Sub-Committee (CASSC)
(Agenda Item 21)
Received:
i) Report that the structure of the CASSC is being reviewed following a wider review of negotiating machinery for the higher education sector;
ii) Progress report on the review and its impact on the CASSC, as prepared by the secretariat (MASC 41 2007-2008).
The committee heard-that the CASSC was currently under review due to a review of the Joint Negotiating Committee Higher Education Sector (JNCHES). Over the summer UCEA had informally consulted with MASC on the changes to the JNCHES structure which would subsequently have an impact on the salaries committee responsible for the translation of the DDRB award to clinical academics. Approval was needed from MASC on the principles contained in MASC 41 that this was the correct way forward. The BDA indicated that they had been happy with the BMA’s approach.
The MASC committee supported the proposal in MASC 41 and thought it was positive that there was interest in achieving dialogue between the BMA, the Universities and the NHS trusts through the proposed stakeholder forum. The committee agreed that it was important that the new arrangements continued to ensure there was the ability to formally discuss medical academic pay if necessary.
It was suggested that representation on the main JNCHES committee could be sought.
Action: secretariat to continue liaising with BMA legal, the BDA and UCU. Once finalised and agreed with MASC executive subcommittee, the documentation should be submitted to UCEA.
22. Salary Scales Below The Level Of Consultant
(Agenda Item 22)
Received:
i) Report that the Universities and Colleges Employers Association have proposed that the salary scales for the new Specialty Registrar grade be translated to Clinical Academics;
ii) UCEA Update sent to their subscribers on 30 08 07 which suggests how the translation should take place (MASC 42 2007-08).
The committee discussed the paper sent from UCEA to their subscribers which sought their subscribers’ support to translate the run through grade salary scale to the university sector. Ross Hobson expressed concern that UCEA had not shared the documentation with the BDA, apparently thinking that it was not relevant.
Resolved: Because IATS posts are funded largely from the DH R&D funding, the academic trainee salary scale should be raised with Sarah Fox. Further, the committee should argue for an extended salary scale for academic trainees because the step out period would increase the length of training. The committee should not accept a new pay scale for trainees which started at a lower position and contained fewer points than existing arrangements.
Action: Meeting between Michael Rees and Ross Hobson to be arranged in the next week to discuss an integrated payscale for the new academic trainees.
23. Clinical Excellence Awards
(Agenda Item 23)
Received:
i) Report that the MASC has commented on draft copies of the Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards (ACCEA) guidance to support the 2008 Clinical Excellence Awards round;
ii) Progress report from the secretariat on the suggestion that clinical academic applications require joint sign off by university and NHS Employers and extension of the scheme to medical school deans without clinical programmed activities (MASC 43 2007-2008).
The committee heard that Anita Holdcroft and Michael Rees had met with ACCEA to discuss joint sign off for clinical academics and written several letters on the same issue. The committee was pleased to note that ACCEA appeared to have dropped the proposal for joint sign of as indicated in their letter of 17 09 07. It was agreed that the avoidance of joint sign off for clinical academics should be seen as a negotiating success.
Mark Gabbay reported that the SAGP had agreed with the ACCEA that academic GPs would be awarded 5 gold and 5 silver awards each year. Any new individuals hoping to come in at this level would therefore have to compete against anyone already with an award hoping to move up.
24. Women In Academic Medicine
(Agenda Item 24)
Received: “Women in Academic Medicine: Developing equality in governance and management for career progression” executive summary and recommendations (MASC14 2007-2008).
Considered: Opportunities for action on the recommendations.
The committee noted that the recommendations for action had been incorporated into the MASC strategy (MASC 3 2007-08), agreed by the committee earlier in the meeting.
RECEIVE ITEMS
25. Regional Services Liaison Group
(Agenda Item 25)
Received:
i) Minutes of the Regional Services Liaison Group meeting held on 19 July 2007 (MASC126 2006-2007);
ii) Report that the MASC Regional Services Liaison Group will meet on 25 October 2007, Thursday 13 March 2007 and Tuesday 17 June 2007;
iii) Report that a BMA Industrial Relations Officer (IRO) has responsibility for each employing trust and university. Members may wish to contact Industrial Relations Officers in relation to collective medical school or LNC issues. Individual queries should be referred to askBMA as these may be dealt with by employment advisors/senior employment advisors.
The committee found the list of regional services staff as appended to the agenda useful and were encouraged to make contact with their IRO. The committee noted that Michael Rees had informally been nominated by council to meeting with John Posnett about satisfaction with askBMA.
Action: Michael Rees to arrange a meeting with John Posnett, askBMA service manager.
26. Regulation of the Medical Profession
(Agenda Item 26)
Received:
i) Guidance from the General Medical Council and the Medical Schools Council “Medical students: professional behaviour and fitness to practice” published in September 2007 (MASC 45 2007-2008);
ii) Press release issued on 20 August in relation to regulation of medical profession http://www.bma.org.uk/pressrel.nsf/wlu/STRE-769JDB?OpenDocument;
iii) Report that a letter on the future of professional regulation from Hamish Meldrum, the Chairman of Council is due to be sent to all BMA members on Thursday 27 September 2007;
iv) Written report by David Katz on Meeting between Joint Medical Consultants Committee and General Medical Council, to discuss the White Paper “Trust, Assurance and Safety” on 5th September (MASC 46 2007-2008).
The committee discussed the proposed sliding scale of a civil standard of proof in fitness to practice cases. The committee was informed that the government had apparently made up their mind that GMC Council would be made up equally of lay members and medical professionals. David Katz reported that the GMC was in the process of establishing working groups to consider the reforms in detail and academics should seek to get involved.
27. Date Of Next Meeting
(Agenda Item 27)
Received: Report that the Committee will next meet on Friday 11 January 2007 at 10.00am. The final meeting of the session will be on Friday 18 April 2007.
28. Any Other Business
(Agenda Item 28)
Considered: Any other business.
It was agreed that a planning meeting for COMAR 2008 would be set up by the secretariat to discuss the possibility of a poster competition.