It’s time to stop the ‘hidden curriculum’ pressuring pre-vocational doctors into clinical academic work, the AMA says.
The Australian Medical Association is once again calling for transparency in specialty training program selection processes, as more junior doctors turn out “junk research” in an effort to buff up their CVs.
In a recent submission to the Australian Medical Council’s review of the standards for specialist medical programs, the association said it supported draft standards that emphasised transparency in selection but believed it could go further.
“Due to pressures arising from the ‘hidden curriculum’ there is an expectation that trainees should endeavour to have first authorship of a published academic article within trusted journals,” the AMA wrote.
“Coupled with the expectations that potential trainees should undertake clinical academic work to enter or complete vocational training, medical students and trainees are not taught the skills and or receive appropriate support to undertake clinical academic work.
“This leads to poor quality or ‘junk’ research that contains errors in methodology, bias, and poor reporting of results.”
It recommended the medical council – which is in charge of setting the education standards for medical schools, specialist colleges, and CPD homes – make an amendment explicitly reducing the need for academic authorship to gain selection into training.
Another component of the so-called “hidden curriculum” was undisclosed or hidden fees.
“These additional unplanned costs disproportionately impact career decisions and the financial sustainability of doctors in training from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, First Nations doctors, doctors with disability, or those managing family responsibilities,” the AMA wrote.
“Trainees must also manage ‘hidden costs’ of specialist medical training, including the cost of pre-requisite courses prior to entering training, or attending conferences and workshops, which while not mandatory, are important to remain competitive with their peers.”
The AMA was also “alarmed and concerned” that the medical council’s new draft omitted one accreditation standard which had been included in a previous iteration of the document.
The omitted standard required education providers to have formal processes and structures in place that facilitated and supported the involvement of trainees in the governance of their training.
Colleges with trainees represented at the board level consistently reported improved communication between trainees and college leadership and increased investment by trainees in college processes.
“This [omission] is a concerning backwards development within the specialist standards and is unacceptable to our doctor in training members,” the AMA wrote.
Related
“The AMA hosted a Trainee Forum in 2024 bringing together the trainee committee chairs of specialist medical colleges to discuss trainee involvement in college governance.
“Trainee chairs agreed that strong trainee representation improves outcomes for trainees and increases morale amongst doctors in training.
“Unfortunately, many trainees feel that positive improvements have often occurred in the aftermath of a crisis rather than proactively, despite the clear benefits of increased trainee involvement in college governance.”
