Are ophthalmologists overtrained? | British Journal of Ophthalmology

Subscribe
Log In More

Log in via Institution
Log in via OpenAthens
Log in via AAO

Log in using your username and password
For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts

Username *

Password *

Forgot your log in details?Register a new account?
Forgot your user name or password?
Basket
Search More

Search for this keyword

Advanced search

Responses

Commentary

Are ophthalmologists overtrained?

Compose a Response to This Article

Compose Response

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

No

Please describe the competing interests

PLEASE NOTE:

A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.

I agree to and have read the terms and conditions for rapid responses and BMJ Privacy Notice *

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

An "overtrained" ophthalmologist responds
Published on: 22 March 2016

Published on: 22 March 2016
An "overtrained" ophthalmologist responds
- , Fellow
- Other Contributors:
  Marcela Votruba
Editor,
As one of the most "overtrained"(!) ophthalmologists in the UK at the present time, I was delighted and stimulated to read the excellent, erudite and witty Commentary by James Acheson in the recent edition of the British Journal of Ophthalmology 2001;85:383-384. I think that the issue that lies at the heart of the matter is, as Mr. Acheson himself puts it, "It all depends on what you mean by training ....
Show More

Editor,
As one of the most "overtrained"(!) ophthalmologists in the UK at the present time, I was delighted and stimulated to read the excellent, erudite and witty Commentary by James Acheson in the recent edition of the British Journal of Ophthalmology 2001;85:383-384. I think that the issue that lies at the heart of the matter is, as Mr. Acheson himself puts it, "It all depends on what you mean by training . . . ." Surely one of the driving reasons behind the length of all specialist training in the UK has always been the high demands of the service commitment of the SHO and Registrar grades alike. Until the issue of doctors' numbers can begin to be tackled at a meaningful level in the UK we shall forever have the push- pull politics of service versus training. It is still worth pointing out that we have the lowest number of doctors per capita in the developed world, bar only Greece and Albania.
It is also very true that the standards of ophthalmology training in the UK are regarded very highly by trainees from oversees, who regularly come to the UK to complement and polish off their training. However, they come mainly for subspecialty training and often go to super-specialist regional centers, where they act as Fellows, often in a somewhat privileged position. They are able to benefit from the high level of internationally renowned expertise in their chosen field, that the UK is still able to provide. We in the UK face a rather unique situation, in that super-specialist Fellowship training is quite rightly becoming the norm whilst still being outside the national Calman Training Programme. This sends a very mixed message about its value to the powers that be. It is also far from easy for every trainee to find a suitable Fellowship and funding.
So, on one hand the length of training could be shortened by tackling the issue of service versus training demands, and on the other hand perhaps training could formally be lengthened to ensure that British ophthalmologists are able to stay at the forefront of their chosen fields in the international arena.
We all await developments with interest!
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top