Ministers urged to provide more graduate training slots for UK medical students
Dr Peter Prinsley, a retired ENT (ear, nose and throat) specialist who was elected for Labour last year, said thousands of British medicine graduates were missing out on doing further training every year because of a lack of places combined with the pressures from international medical graduates in the NHS.
The British Medical Association has said about 20,000 applicants will miss out this year, if the number of available posts are the same. It added that according to the latest figures, there were 4.7 applications per post.
The MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said it had led to graduates moving abroad to do further study who sometimes do not return. He added there should be reserved spaces for UK graduates to be able to specialise and do further study.
Dr Prinsley told the PA news agency: 'The problem is that we've got a distorted competition ratio for the professional training slots.
'It should be a reasonable expectation that if you graduate from the UK medical school, you should have a reasonable chance of getting into higher professional training.
'There should be some competition. It shouldn't just be that you automatically progress with no effort, there should be a bit of competition, but the competition ratios have been hugely distorted by the requirement of the hospitals to provide junior doctors to staff their rotas.'
It comes as Wes Streeting said UK medical graduates will be given priority for NHS jobs under the upcoming 10-year health plan.
The Health Secretary told medical website doctors.net.uk on Thursday: 'I want to make sure that if you go through your medical training here in the UK, that you're able to work in the UK.'
Mr Streeting added it was 'completely bonkers' to invest in training doctors but not ensure they can stay in the UK to work.
The latest figures from the BMA showed there were 33,108 medical graduates applying for around 13,000 posts. This includes 12,305 UK graduates and 20,803 from overseas.
The number of international medical graduates has doubled in two years, the figures show, while the UK ones have only risen by a third.
The sharp rise in the number of international medical graduates has been down to the increased demand for doctors in the NHS to fill hospital vacancies.
In 2023 more than two-thirds of new doctors (68%) joining the NHS were non-UK graduates, up from 47% in 2017.
In a statement, the Department for Health and Social Care said the Government should not be 'over-reliant' on overseas recruitment.
Doctors can go on to do further training after two foundation years in the NHS.
If they apply and miss out on further study, they then move on to so-called foundation three status, where they can work as locums and apply for jobs within individual trusts. Some, however, opt to move abroad to work or study.
The number doing another foundation year has risen in recent years. In its latest workforce report, the General Medical Council said the number of doctors not going into speciality training had grown and was a 'sizeable' part of the workforce.
Dr Prinsley said he believes priority should be given to UK graduates and physician associates – who have less training – could be used to fill some of the roles taken up by overseas recruits.
He said: 'The change that we need is not very difficult. We just need to make a situation in which we prioritise the UK training slots for the UK medical graduates. If we've got any slots we can't recruit to, then, of course, we extend it.'
He added: 'The problem has two solutions. We need less international medical graduates being recruited by the hospitals. We need to find an alternative way of staffing the rotas to run the hospitals.
'There's a sort of golden mean, which would allow us to sort out the ratios of international medical graduates to British graduates, and also provide a meaningful role for these graduates as physician associates.'
The British Medical Association will discuss the issue at its annual conference in Liverpool on Monday. In a motion put forward by members in the East Midlands, it asks the Government to 'significantly increase the number of training posts available for resident doctors'.
It echoes a similar call by the Royal College of Physicians, who wrote in February 'UK graduates must be supported and enabled to enter postgraduate training schemes to continue their training in the NHS'.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'We are committed to building home-grown talent and ensuring UK medical graduates can find work in Britain – our 10 year health plan will tackle bottlenecks in the system.
'Internationally-trained staff remain an important part of the workforce but we should not be over reliant on overseas recruitment.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
15 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Denbighshire, Conwy, Gwynedd & Anglesey MPs back assisted dying bill
MPs voted 314 in favour, to 291 against, during the third reading of Labour's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) in Parliament on Friday (June 20). This does not mean the bill has become law, but it allows it to now progress to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. The majority almost halved since the last vote in November, during the bill's second reading. If successful, the bill would make assisted suicide legal for terminally ill adults expected to die within six months, and with the mental capacity to make a choice about how to end their life. Below are comments from MPs Llinos Medi, Liz Saville Roberts, Claire Hughes, Gill German and Becky Gittins on why they all backed the bill. Llinos Medi (Image: Submitted) "I am assured that the bill has been strengthened during the scrutiny process. For example, I voted in favour of an amendment to prevent health professionals such as doctors from initiating conversations with under-18s about assisted dying, which passed. "Regardless of today's vote, scrutiny does not end here. As MPs, we have a duty and I remain committed to listening to all voices, including those who oppose the bill. "Whatever your opinion on today's outcome, I believe that we should show respect to both sides of the debate. Days like today are not easy and we must show compassion to all." Liz Saville Roberts (Image: Submitted) "I believe that adults who are terminally ill, with a prognosis of six months or less to live, and who have full mental capacity, should have the legal right to make this profoundly personal decision for themselves, free from coercion and with strong safeguards in place. "I fully understand the concerns many people, including disability rights groups and medical organisations, have raised about protecting individuals. "That is why I support the inclusion of strict safeguards, involving medical professionals, social workers and judicial oversight, to ensure that each decision is carefully assessed, voluntary, and free from pressure. "I am also conscious of concerns about the so-called 'slippery slope'. However, the bill is tightly framed, applying only to terminally ill adults and excluding those whose suffering is solely related to mental illness. Any further changes would require full parliamentary scrutiny." Claire Hughes (Image: Submitted) "Fundamentally, I believe we should all have the right to decide what happens to our bodies and when enough is enough. "I believe that the status quo - where only terminally ill people with the wealth to enable them to travel to Dignitas are able to exercise control over their final moments - is not good enough. "This bill has gone through a robust process, making it rigorous, practical and safe, and is rooted in the principles of compassion, justice and human dignity. "I want, again, to make it abundantly clear that good palliative care and giving terminally ill people the choice to choose an assisted death, are not mutually exclusive." Gill German (Image: Rick Matthews) "During report stage, I supported New Clause 10, which expands the bill's protection for medical practitioners to ensure they have 'no obligation' to administer an assisted death and provide legal protections for medical professionals to ensure they are not subject to punishment for refusing to carry out an assisted death. "Further, I voted against New Clause 1 and 2. While I respect the deeply held views on all sides, I believe both amendments introduced unnecessary risks by restricting open, compassionate conversations between clinicians and patients that are often essential to end-of-life care. "New Clause 1, which was not adopted, would have banned doctors from raising assisted dying with adult patients at all, even when clinically appropriate. This clause would disproportionately harm those with lower health literacy who may not know how to start the conversation. "New Clause 2, which was passed, prevents doctors from discussing assisted dying with under-18s in any context. I believe this risks isolating terminally ill teenagers or young relatives of dying patients, by preventing doctors from discussing assisted dying with under-18s in any context. "This may drive vulnerable young people towards unregulated and potentially harmful sources of information." Becky Gittins (Image: Submitted) "I believe there are as many safeguards as practically possible contained within this bill to ensure free and fair choice for patients to make this decision in an informed way, free from coercion. "I hope that the high level of parliamentary scrutiny that this bill has received will encourage a more forensic consideration of the role of patient decision-making across the UK and broader society. "Throughout the legislative process, the attention given to the needs of the most vulnerable people and the importance of ensuring a free choice has brought an essential focus on the role of coercion, domestic abuse, disability, ableism and poverty on people's ability to genuinely make a free decision about their lives – whether on this issue or many others."
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
PHP outbids rival with £1.79bn takeover deal for Assura
NHS landlord Assura has backed an improved takeover offer from a healthcare investor amid the continued bidding war for the London-listed firm. Assura said on Monday that its board has agreed a £1.79 billion offer from Primary Health Properties (PHP). PHP had laid down a £1.68 billion bid last month but was outbid by a rival suitor, with a consortium led by US private equity firm KKR valuing the business at £1.7 billion. Assura's directors said they believe the fresh deal is in the 'best interests' of the medical property firm's shareholders. Both bidders have upped their offers several times in recent months to try and clinch a deal. Assura owns more than 600 buildings, including doctors' surgeries, with a portfolio valued at around £3.1 billion. It has about 80 members of staff. PHP, which is also listed on the London Stock Exchange, said it had agreed a deal worth around 55 pence per share. Ed Smith, non-executive chair of Assura, said: 'Following recent engagement between PHP and Assura, PHP has today further increased the terms of its offer, and has also addressed some of the potential risks that Assura had previously raised. 'The Assura board has always been and will remain resolutely focused on carrying out its fiduciary duties in the interest of Assura shareholders and in this context has decided to recommend this increased offer from PHP.' Harry Hyman, non-executive chair of PHP, said: 'The PHP board continues to believe in the strong strategic rationale of the combination, which will create a leading healthcare focussed listed REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust) with the scale and expertise to deliver significant benefits for the shareholders in PHP and Assura. 'The Increased PHP offer, which is expected to deliver earnings accretion to both sets of shareholders, allows Assura shareholders to participate in significant upside compared to crystalising value in cash at an inflexion point in the current economic cycle, and benefit from the combined group's likely long-term rating, continuing capital growth and a growing dividend.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Major safety warning on popular sunscreen: 'It doesn't do what it says', study finds
A popular sunscreen does not work, potentially leaving consumers at risk of skin cancer, according to a report. Consumer champion Which? tested 15 sun creams from Boots, Garnier and Nivea, as well as own-brand alternatives, and saw surprising results. While a £2.99 supermarket-own sun protectant passed the stringent testing process, a £28 branded favourite failed to reach industry standards. As a result, the consumer body warned, users may not be adequately protected from the sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays - putting them at risk of cancer. Ultrasun Family SPF30, sold by some of the biggest high street retailers and costing £28, markets itself as being 'perfect for the whole family' and 'especially suitable for children with sensitive skin'. But the cream failed two separate tests that measured both its sun protection factor -or SPF - and UV protection. To trial the creams, scientists applied a small amount on volunteers' backs, before shining a lamp on the patch to simulate the sun's rays. The time it takes for the skin to become red was then measured. Ultrasun Family SPF30 (left), sold by some of the biggest high street retailers, markets itself as being 'perfect for the whole family' and 'especially suitable for children with sensitive skin'. Another sunscreen that made it on to the Don't Buy list was Morrisons Moisturising Sun Spray SPF30 - £3.75 per bottle In another test, scientists took a sample of the cream and spread it onto a glass plate to measure the absorption of UV radiation directly. To pass, the sunscreen needed to provide at least one third of the claimed SPF. SPF is measurement of the length of time you can be in the sun before you get burnt. For example, a sunscreen with an SPF of 30 will take 30 times longer to damage your skin compared to no protection at all. If a product failed to demonstrate the level of SPF it claimed to have on its first test, Which? repeated the test. If it passed the second time around, a third test was done. Any product that failed either test twice overall, was labelled a 'Don't Buy' by Which?. Natalie Hitchins, Which?'s head of home products and services, warned shoppers to look out for these products, as they are not guaranteed to protect as expected. 'It's really concerning that widely available sunscreens could be putting families at risk by failing to offer the level of sun protection claimed on the packaging,' she said. 'Our results prove that there's no need to splash out to keep you and your loved ones safe in the sun as we've found other cheap and reliable options.' A spokesman from Ultrasun told Which? the brand was fully confident in its testing protocols and that these surpass industry standards, adding: 'As an independent brand delivering very high UVB and UVA protection options for over 30 years, our detailed testing processes, independent and peer reviewed, continue to not only meet but surpass industry standards. Our chosen testing protocol is one of the strictest available. 'Further detail and clarification from Which? on their testing protocols would also be helpful, particularly on how these resulted in two different results from the same sample. We conclusively support the results of our independent tests which found the Ultrasun Family SPF30 reached a UVB-SPF in vivo of 31.4 and a UVA-PF in vitro of 13.1 which equates to a 92 per cent UVA absorbance. The UVA absorbance is calculated by the formula 1-(1/UVA-PF).' Another sunscreen that made it on to this year's Don't Buy list was Morrisons Moisturising Sun Spray SPF30, priced at £3.75 per bottle. Morrisons says it is looking closely at the data and working with its supplier to carry out additional independent testing. Sunscreens that did pass the Which? test included Aldi's Lacura Sensitive Sun Lotion SPF50+, which costs just £2.99. At just £1.50 per 100ml, it also earned a Which? Great Value badge. Lidl's Cien Sun Spray 30SPF High (£3.79) Boot's Soltan Protect & Moisturise Suncare Spray SPF30 (£5.50) Nivea's Sun Protect and Moisture Lotion SPF30 (£7.90) and Sainsbury's Sun Protect Moisturising Lotion SPF30 (£5.50) all also passed the safety tests. The damning report comes days after Kelsey Parker, 34, came under fire for admitting she doesn't put sunscreen on her children. The podcast host claimed daughter Aurelia, five, and son Bodhi, four, 'don't burn' and that using sunscreen 'causes skin cancer'. The children's father, The Wanted star Tom Parker, tragically died from brain cancer in 2022. Speaking in the latest episode of her Mum's The Word! podcast about 'the secret world of parenting', Ms Parker confessed that she opts to keep her children out of the sun rather than using SPF to protect them. She added that she makes 'organic' sunscreen out of beeswax for UV protection instead. 'It's bad for you–that sunscreen,' she said. 'My kids do not wear sun cream. 'The only thing that I may put on them is an organic sun cream. 'My kids, we went on holiday, I never put sun cream on them and they do not burn. 'I never used to wear sun cream, sun cream causes skin cancer.' Since making the controversial remarks, the expectant mother has been blasted by listeners, who have accused her of spreading 'dangerous misinformation. One listener wrote on social media: 'This is really dangerous spreading this information. Please research.' 'This is insane and so unsafe. It's so damaging, burning doesn't indicate sun damage, it can literally kill them. Wow,' a second said. A third slammed the 'dangerous advice', while a fourth called the dismissal of conventional sun cream 'irresponsible'. Experts say there is no evidence that sunscreen causes cancer in humans. Dr Bav Shergill a consultant dermatologist at the Queen Victoria Hospital, London and spokesperson for the British Association of Dermatologists, previously told MailOnline: 'Sunscreens are a safe and effective way to protect your skin from burning and other forms of sun damage. 'Millions of people have used sunscreen over many decades so we can be confident about their safety profile.' Studies have long shown sun creams can contain both mineral and chemical UV filters. Mineral UV filters mainly remain on the skin's surface and form a physical barrier to deflect UV rays before they penetrate your skin. Chemical UV filters, meanwhile, absorb UV light and convert it into heat energy. As well as being used in sun creams, they may be added to other personal care products, such as moisturisers. Some research on animals, mainly mice, has indicated many commonly used chemical UV filters in high quantities could be endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) — chemicals that interfere with hormones — such as mimicking natural oestrogen found in our bodies. Lifetime exposure to oestrogen is an established risk factor for cancers, including breast. But no research on humans has backed this up. Going without sunscreen, meanwhile, has been shown to directly raise the risk of developing skin cancer. Around 15,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with melanoma each year—the UK's fifth most common cancer—with the incidence rate rising faster than any other common cancer. A recent study from Cancer Research UK warned found that an alarming 87 per cent of melanoma cases, the equivalent of 17,100 in the UK each year, are caused by overexposure to ultraviolet radiation, either directly from the sun or sun beds—meaning they could be avoided. This is because increased UV exposure can damage the DNA in skin cells, triggering mutations that become cancerous. From here, the cancer can spread to the blood vessels beneath the skin, getting into the bloodstream and spreading throughout the body. Last year, rates of the cancer reached a record high in the UK, with new diagnoses increasing by almost a third in just a decade, according to the charity. According to the NHS website, people should apply suncream to avoid burning and use 'at least factor 30'. 'Sunburn increases your risk of skin cancer. Sunburn does not just happen on holiday. You can burn in the UK, even when it's cloudy,' the site reads. The health service also recommends avoiding the sun when it is at its strongest, between the hours of 11am and 3pm from March to November, and to cover up with suitable clothing and sunglasses.
