A compelling message from @DrAdrianJames on how #SAS doctors have been excluded from full participation in @rcpsych, and how this can be corrected by extension of voting rights rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-featu…. Definitely worth reading, and (thread) some thoughts...
The #AGM to discuss this is now available online which is a great move in response to considerable criticism that an 8.30am in-person meeting in Edinburgh was not a good way to discuss a key change in @rcpsych policy, particularly disadvantaging specific groups
There is a strong defence of extending voting rights to #SAS Drs who have felt excluded for many years (highlighted in a recent College survey). I think there is wide support for this; there is no specific comment on why also to international doctors overseas without membership
There is no explanation of the expansion of post-nominals, which has been the main area of concern seen over the last 2 days, or addressing the criticism that this could look like "money for initials", or could be misused in arenas beyond the @rcpsych control
There is a repeated doubling-down on process, highlighting the democratic nature of the Council (whose minutes are private) and the Board of Trustees (consisting of elected officers already on the Council and a minority of voted and lay representatives rcpsych.ac.uk/about-us/our-p…)
There is (ouch!) a comment on the risk of "policy by social media". Clearly a danger, though equally many people had only heard about the proposed changes on twitter over the last 48hrs, so arguably a better response would have been to consider transparency and communication
There is also no explanation of why voting is extended beyond Members to Affiliates, International Associates and Specialist Associates but not to Pre-Membership UK Trainees - a key group who also pay the College (perhaps not a "significant subscription")
But (end of thread) it is important that now people can engage with the proposals (at late notice & not a great time) at an on-line #AGM, helping to decide the direction of the @rcpsych & consider whether the current proposals for postnominals and voting is the best way forward.
1/ More (sorry) on the proposals for @rcpsych#AGM. Great improvement to have online voting, and separate votes for broadening electorate & use of postnominals. So an update on where I see things are currently and ongoing concerns.(Sign up here: rcpsych.ac.uk/about-us/our-p…) Thread:
2/ I think there is a lot of frustration from all sides that our ability to support #SAS doctors (experienced, psychiatrists who make up a high proportion of the workforce) has been caught up in wider changes of direction by the @rcpsych. Their input should be better valued.
3/ The process of scrutiny of the proposals seems to have fallen short, leading to last-minute changes of #AGM process and suggested separation of voting into 2 parts- (i) the changes to College electorate & (ii) introduction of new postnominals (which has been widely criticised)
I'm receiving some concern from trainees @rcpsychTrainees and consultants @rcpsych about the proposed changes to use of #RCPsych in titles ("postnominals"), & accessibility of #AGM at #RCPsychIC. Information not easy to find so let me try to describe (Conflict of Int: FRCPsych)
Currently "MRCPsych" aka membership is used by doctors who have passed College #exams, and FRCPsych used by Fellows -essentially more senior members. These are the only 2 postnominals and have some other conditions. There are other ways of associating with the RCPsych though...
Specialist Associates @rcpsych are experienced psychiatrists in the UK,on the GMC specialist register but without the MRCPsych exams (eg if trained abroad to consultant level). Proposals introduce "SpARCPsych" and use FRCPsych for senior SpA (so FRCPsych no longer = passed exams)