Download PDFPDF

Evaluating the validity of the selection measures used for the UK’s foundation medical training programme: a national cohort study
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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.
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:

  • Published on:
    The Inverse Care Law and the UK Foundation Programme

    Dear Editor,
    I read this paper on the UK Foundation Programme with interest (1).
    The authors state that graduates with high scores relating to educational performance, additional educational achievements and the situational judgement test were more likely to complete foundation training. Of course, the ranking process used by the UK Foundation Programme means that those in receipt of high scores are more likely to work in their desired location and specialties. Conversely, doctors with low scores are more likely to receive jobs in undesirable locations. It is unsurprising that such doctors are less likely to complete foundation training. As Caroline Elton (2) writes:
    ‘More highly ranked students are likely to choose those programmes where students felt better supported and better trained, whilst weaker students are left to take whatever is left over… [they are also] more likely to end up working in parts of the country where they know absolutely nobody, and have no accessible systems of support. This is an educational variant of what GP Dr Julian Tutor-Hart famously termed the “inverse care law”’.
    It would be difficult, and likely unpopular, to remove the meritocratic nature of the ranking system used for selection to foundation training. The Foundation Priority Programme (3) may attract higher-ranking students to locations that usually experience recruitment difficulties, which could improve working environment at these locations. However, without...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.