Stress, lies and red tape: The views, success rates and stress levels of the MTAS cohort

Abstract

Objective: To track the success rates in obtaining a specialist training (ST) post of a cohort of medical training application system (MTAS) applicants, as well as canvassing their views of the process and measuring symptoms of psychological distress during application and after job allocation. Design: A follow-up cross-sectional survey. Setting: Two large south London psychiatry training schemes. Participants: 101 MTAS applicants. Main outcome measures: Success in obtaining an ST post, respondents' views about MTAS and General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) scores. Results: 48 of the original sample responded to the follow-up survey. Data were available about post-MTAS job status for a further 41 trainees. 64% of candidates obtained an ST post. Of those, however, 12% were only offered a fixed-term post. Most unsuccessful candidates were doing locum (34%) or non-training grade (21%) jobs. UK/European Economic Area (EEA) doctors were more successful than non-EEA applicants in obtaining an ST post (odds ratio 5.5, 95% confidence interval 2.1-14.3), as were women candidates compared to men (3.7, 0.5-9.3). The respondents' views about MTAS were globally negative (even if they were successful in obtaining an ST post). The median GHQ-12 score for respondents was 7 out of a potential total score of 12. 79% of the sample scored above the threshold (GHQ-12 ≥4) for psychological distress and 21% experienced significant distress (GHQ-12 ≥8). Conclusions: MTAS was a flawed system. A considerable proportion (36%) of candidates who had been on a Senior House Officer training scheme were left without a training post after MTAS. The system seems to favour UK/EEA applicants. Applicants suffered significant psychological distress during and after the MTAS process.