Membership

Training & Beyond

Standards & Policy

News & Events

Publications

About Us

Prevocational Training Requirements Review

The Medical Council (MCNZ), with support from Health Workforce New Zealand (HWNZ), is reviewing prevocational training.

The review builds on the work of previous groups charged with exploring workforce education and training and explores the issues and drivers behind the need for change; the purpose and objectives of the first two postgraduate years, and recommends key features of a prevocational training framework.

You will find the discussion paper Prevocational Training Requirements for Doctors in New Zealand: a discussion paper on options for an enhanced training framework for discussion and feedback here. 

The paper raises a number of questions and proposes possible options for change. Following discussion and feedback, our intention is to further develop the education and training framework for all PGY1 and PGY2 doctors. As a result, future PGY1 and PGY2 doctors may experience modifications to the curriculum, modifications to the clinical runs and different settings for training.

Dr John Adams, Chair of the Medical Council of New Zealand will be visiting a number of venues throughout New Zealand to provide an opportunity for consultation on the discussion paper released in May. It is a chance for your questions to be answered and for Council to receive valuable feedback on the proposals.

The Council encourages you to provide comment on the options and questions raised in the discussion paper by Friday 22 July 2011. You may provide submissions by either using the online form on the MCNZ website, or by emailing your submission to prevocationalconsultation@mcnz.org.nz .

If you would like your comments to remain private and confidential, please state this in your submission.

In responding, the Council is particularly interested to obtain your views on:

  1. Are there any important issues and drivers that we have either omitted or overstated?
  2. Do you agree with the objectives and principles? Would you delete or add any?
  3. Should there be mandatory runs? If so, what should these be?
  4. What is the appropriate length of the internship that will ensure training in a variety of clinical settings and allow for assessment of competence?
  5. What are the consequences of each option?
  6. What is your preferred option and why?
  7. Is there an alternative option that is not outlined in this paper that would be consistent with the objectives and principles outlined in this paper?