Posted by: Witch Doctor | December 15, 2007

Tooke Report and defining the role of the doctor

witch10.jpg

WILL THE TOOKE REPORT HAVE ENOUGH CLOUT?

The ferret has been ferreting.

He wants more information on the origin of The Skills Escalator.

ferret1.jpg

The Department of Health abdicate and point in the direction of the now defunct “NHS Modernisation Agency”

“The Career Framework for the NHS originated from the former NHS Modernisation Agency. A stakeholder steering group was established in 2004, chaired by Andrew Foster, former Director of Human Resources for the Department of Health.”

Then picked up by “Skills for Health”

“The Department of Health asked Skills for Health to take over further development and population of the Framework in summer 2005. The remit was to further develop and embed a competence-based career framework for health, where possible ensuring that the framework is capable of being applied on a UK basis. Initial priorities were given for population of the framework.”

The Leitch Review, which seems to be the precursor of “The Skills Escalator”, was not published until December 2006 – after these dates.

Was the tail wagging the dog, My Black Cat?

Anyway, The Tooke Report places great emphasis on “defining the role of the doctor?”

Indeed there can be no progression until the role of the doctor is defined.

Workforce projections are not possible until the role of the doctor is defined.

Yes, defining the role of the doctor is the crucial first stage of The Tooke Report.

If the role of the doctor is not made crystal clear, there can be no progress whatsoever.

Absolutely none.

Do you think anyone has a clue what is involved in defining the role of the doctor?

Do they realise what a marathon this will turn out to be, My Black Cat?

And why?

redapple.jpg a red apple ……………………

© Mpz@sapo.pt | Agency: Dreamstime.com
© Isselee | Dreamstime.com
© Ijansempoi | Dreamstime.com


Responses

  1. The final report of the Leitch Review was published in late 2006. However, an interim report was published in 2004 which already showed the direction of things to come, and which probably should be interpreted as the beginning of a ‘global’ New Labour policy regarding ‘skills’. Then again, as ecologics.wordpress.com points out in Lord Leitch’s Levers (Part 3), there was also a significant shift in New Labour that began to take place from around 2000 onwards vis-a-vis higher education. Presumably a similar shift began to happen in the context of New Labour’s stance vis-a-vis healthcare education.

  2. Thanks for your clarification regarding the earlier report, ngle.

    I could be wrong about this, but suspect that neither the interim nor final Leitch Review was noted much by the medical profession – not even by those in academic posts.

    One of the problems with MMC seems that doctors were focusing on medical training without seeing it within the broader “skills” context which involves everyone.

    Being focused can be good as long as it’s not forced by wearing blinkers. That’s what we witches think anyway!!


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: