Gender bias in GP training?

namga

What are peoples views on this?

I have been told that it is much harder for a woman to secure a GP training place than a man. The reason given is that a much higher proportion of women apply, but gender balance is desired in the workforce.

There is also a perception that women will want to work shorter hours, and also that women are reluctant to work in rural areas.

This all seems quite unfair. Maybe a gender a balance is required, but it would be nice to see some proper evidence and a much better argument.

panda100

Gender bias in medicine shocker :eek:

Its not just only in GP training that there is a bias towards male applicants. They completely overhauled the entry requirements to medical school because women were outnumbering men through the point system. The heads of the medical schools were quite open about the fact that the 'feminisation' of medicine was something that had to be rectified. Funny how they're not so quick to make similar gender re balances in nursing.

I think gp directors were getting worried because many female gp trainees are/were having babies during their training which entitled them to full pay maternity leave, which you don't get in many professions.

Sid_Justice

how many part time male gps do you know?
how many part time female gps do you know?

panda100

Sid_Justice wrote: »

how many part time male gps do you know?
how many part time female gps do you know?

What is your point?

My sister is a full time gp in Limerick city. My brother is also full time but he gets a lot of time off at the weekends to play footballl.

Sid_Justice

what did you think my point was? i think it's fairly well accepted that there are more part-time female GPs than part-time male GPs. Seeing as GP training is provided by the HSE and presuming male GPs and female GPs are equally competent, surely it's obvious why you'd want to address female bias in the training?

No?

panda100

Sid_Justice wrote: »

what did you think my point was? i think it's fairly well accepted that there are more part-time female GPs than part-time male GPs. Seeing as GP training is provided by the HSE and presuming male GPs and female GPs are equally competent, surely it's obvious why you'd want to address female bias in the training?

No?

I have many debates with people about gender quota's for politicians, and the one argument that is continually thrown back at me is that the best person should get the job, regardless of gender, and I think that is a fair point.
I think it's a sad indicator of the direction Irish medicine is taking when less-qualified or motivated candidates get accepted onto a gp scheme just because they have a penis inbetween their legs.

I have seen female friends of mine with years of hospital experience rejected in favour of male applicants fresh out of their intern year.

opinion guy

namga wrote: »

What are peoples views on this?

I have been told that it is much harder for a woman to secure a GP training place than a man. The reason given is that a much higher proportion of women apply, but gender balance is desired in the workforce.

There is also a perception that women will want to work shorter hours, and also that women are reluctant to work in rural areas.

This all seems quite unfair. Maybe a gender a balance is required, but it would be nice to see some proper evidence and a much better argument.

I'm not saying there is or there isn't a gender bias, but what are you actually basing these opinions on ? Heresay ? Is there any data to back it up ?

sam34

panda100 wrote: »

I have many debates with people about gender quota's for politicians, and the one argument that is continually thrown back at me is that the best person should get the job, regardless of gender, and I think that is a fair point.
I think it's a sad indicator of the direction Irish medicine is taking when less-qualified or motivated candidates get accepted onto a gp scheme just because they have a penis inbetween their legs.

I have seen female friends of mine with years of hospital experience rejected in favour of male applicants fresh out of their intern year.

what about when two equally qualified and equally motivated candidates who are competing for one post?

also, how do you know the female friends were rejected on the basis of their gender?

maybe the fact that they have "years of hospital experience" makes then look like they dont know what direction they want to go with their careers, have faffed around from one specialty to another, maybe not passed exams, couldnt hack hospital medicine and now look like they are "opting out" into gp. (note, thats not my opinion of GP trainees/wannabe GP trainees, but i know from being on the shortlisting/interview panel side of the table that in general those who have completed one training scheme and are now looking to change course do raise eyebrows a little)

and maybe the male applicants straight out of intern year had clearly demonstrated a genuine interest in GP through doing elective stints during holidays, shadowing while on-call etc.

opinion guy

sam34 wrote: »

what about when two equally qualified and equally motivated candidates who are competing for one post?

also, how do you know the female friends were rejected on the basis of their gender?

maybe the fact that they have "years of hospital experience" makes then look like they dont know what direction they want to go with their careers, have faffed around from one specialty to another, maybe not passed exams, couldnt hack hospital medicine and now look like they are "opting out" into gp. (note, thats not my opinion of GP trainees/wannabe GP trainees, but i know from being on the shortlisting/interview panel side of the table that in general those who have completed one training scheme and are now looking to change course do raise eyebrows a little)

and maybe the male applicants straight out of intern year had clearly demonstrated a genuine interest in GP through doing elective stints during holidays, shadowing while on-call etc.

What a strange mentality. i would have thought diverse experience is a bonus in working as a GP

Sid_Justice

panda100 wrote: »

I have many debates with people about gender quota's for politicians, and the one argument that is continually thrown back at me is that the best person should get the job, regardless of gender, and I think that is a fair point.

Are you implying there is more to this argument? I can assume you're in favor of Gender bias in politics, e.g if there was a minimum number of female TDs to be elected per election or something? What is your rationale for this?

Based on what i'm looking at here you're obviously a woman, who thinks everything should be biased towards women. any bias towards men is unfair but bias towards women is probably better for society in that particular instance. No?

I could be doing the same from the male point of view. However, I have a logical rationale (i'm not saying it's right because it's logical) however politically incorrect it may be. Professional females, in the 25-35 group are very likely to have babies. A large subset of these women will become primary carers. A female is more likely to take maternity leave. A female is more like to go Part-time. This is my reasoning.

If I was employing a secretary I would be skeptical of hiring a female in 25-35 age group. I would not admit this publicly/professionally.

If you wanted to reduce this bias, afford males the same opportunity to paternity leave.

drkpower

opinion guy wrote: »

What a strange mentality. i would have thought diverse experience is a bonus in working as a GP

Not really; it is a common consideration in many sectors.

Candidates who have gone from specialty to specialty are often sen to be undecided/uncertain/uncommitted and that can count against them. Often, that is justified.

Obviously it isnt the sole factor, and as someone against whom the 'accusation' could be made, I certainly appreciate that changing direction mid-career doesnt necessarily mean someone is, in fact, undecided/uncertain/uncommitted.

But when it comes down to filtering candidates who are often quite close in ability, it is a relevent factor to consider.

sam34

opinion guy wrote: »

What a strange mentality. i would have thought diverse experience is a bonus in working as a GP

it would be. but if you have one training scheme place left to allocate, are you going to take a chance on the punter who hasnt stuck in one specialty for more than 6 or 12 months, who hasnt sat/passed any post-grad exams, and who hasnt shown any real dedication/commitment to anything, who looks more as if they are looking for any job rather than the one job they really want?

now, im well aware that i am one of the lucky ones, i knew in college what specialty i wanted to pursue and i followed that route and it has worked out great for me. i know it could have gone belly-up and i may not have liked it. i look around at my fellow classmates and so many of them have changed specialty, many more than once.

but the above is certainly a consideration when interviewing.

opinion guy

sam34 wrote: »

it would be. but if you have one training scheme place left to allocate, are you going to take a chance on the punter who hasnt stuck in one specialty for more than 6 or 12 months, who hasnt sat/passed any post-grad exams, and who hasnt shown any real dedication/commitment to anything, who looks more as if they are looking for any job rather than the one job they really want?

now, im well aware that i am one of the lucky ones, i knew in college what specialty i wanted to pursue and i followed that route and it has worked out great for me. i know it could have gone belly-up and i may not have liked it. i look around at my fellow classmates and so many of them have changed specialty, many more than once.

but the above is certainly a consideration when interviewing.

But thats what the interview is for. There may well be reasons why a person did x,y,z. To judge them based on paper is very narrow minded I feel.

drkpower

opinion guy wrote: »

But thats what the interview is for. There may well be reasons why a person did x,y,z. To judge them based on paper is very narrow minded I feel.

In many cases, you cant interview everyone; and you are forced to filter candidates based on a paper only assessment. It is not ideal, but it is the reality.

sam34

opinion guy wrote: »

But thats what the interview is for. There may well be reasons why a person did x,y,z. To judge them based on paper is very narrow minded I feel.

its not everything on which a judgement is based, but its certainly a valid consideration.

i'd certainly want to get a feel for whether this person is going to take up a valuable training place for a year or so and then feck off.

namga

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm not saying there is or there isn't a gender bias, but what are you actually basing these opinions on ? Heresay ? Is there any data to back it up ?

I have heard these opinions from three different sources, two are qualifying and one is a GP. I said perception in my post - I did not imply I had concrete data.

namga

panda100 wrote: »

They completely overhauled the entry requirements to medical school because women were outnumbering men through the point system.

I actually think an interesting twist on this is that the cleverest women could be choosing medicine as a career relatively more often than the cleverest men. I acknowledge that girls are doing better in their LC etc. - but I see relatively few of these candidates doing physics, maths, engineering - I know a lot of smart guys doing these courses. I really think a lot of girls consider these 'boys' subjects, which is a shame, because they could do with a higher share of bright female students.

namga

Correct me if I am wrong and again I am hearing this anecdotally, but is part of the problem the way GP training is funded?

I was told the government pay all thee trainees salary, rather than the gp trainer contributing some of the cost (which I am told is a v. good deal for the trainer). This contributes to less gps being trained, and also that ones that are trained have to be working at full capacity or they are not getting a return on investment.

RobFowl

namga wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong and again I am hearing this anecdotally, but is part of the problem the way GP training is funded?

I was told the government pay all thee trainees salary, rather than the gp trainer contributing some of the cost (which I am told is a v. good deal for the trainer). This contributes to less gps being trained, and also that ones that are trained have to be working at full capacity or they are not getting a return on investment.

They way GP training is funded has next to nothing to do with any gender imbalance.
Are you really saying existing GP's and not the HSE should pay to train new GP's
Ask yourself why on earth would they even consider that????

drkpower

RobFowl wrote: »

They way GP training is funded has next to nothing to do with any gender imbalance.
Are you really saying existing GP's and not the HSE should pay to train new GP's
Ask yourself why on earth would they even consider that????

Do GP trainess not provide a substantial service to the practice?

Correct me if I am wrong (and i may very well be!) but dont GP trainesss spend a significant proportion of their training runnning clinics (essentially independently), covering holidays of GPs in the practice and doing on-call work?

Traumadoc

Sure the Gamsat exams were introduced to get a gender balance in Medical training.

The LC is biased toward girls, girls are better at languages, 3 out of 4 compulsory subjects in the LC are languages.

They admitted this was the reason for its introduction.

RobFowl

drkpower wrote: »

Do GP trainess not provide a substantial service to the practice?

Correct me if I am wrong (and i may very well be!) but dont GP trainesss spend a significant proportion of their training runnning clinics (essentially independently), covering holidays of GPs in the practice and doing on-call work?

They do provide about the equivalent of about a 0.6 FTE GP but are supposed to be completely supervised and the service provision is factored into the GP trainers contract.
If they were not centrally funded are you saying GP trainers would train them for nothing?
And what has to do with gender balance which is the point of the thread and the reply...

drkpower

RobFowl wrote: »

They do provide about the equivalent of about a 0.6 FTE GP but are supposed to be completely supervised and the service provision is factored into the GP trainers contract.
If they were not centrally funded are you saying GP trainers would train them for nothing?

Thay wouldnt be training them for nothing; it is a relationship where both benefit. The 'trainee' gets trained; the 'trainer' receives a not insignificant service. But I would have thought a contribution would be more appropriate. But perhaps the 'service provision is factored into the GP trainers contract' essentially reflects a de facto 'contribution'.

RobFowl wrote: »

And what has to do with gender balance which is the point of the thread and the reply...

Nothing; just an interesting aside.

RobFowl

drkpower wrote: »

Thay wouldnt be training them for nothing; it is a relationship where both benefit. The 'trainee' gets trained; the 'trainer' receives a not insignificant service. But I would have thought a contribution would be more appropriate. But perhaps the 'service provision is factored into the GP trainers contract' essentially reflects a de facto 'contribution'.

The Irish system is almost identical to that in the UK (taking into account the different Primary care systems) in that GP "trainees" are fully funded by the state.
Interestingly the ICGP is opening a new but apparently time limited system of recognizing GP training. For Doctors with "appropriate" hospital experience and who have worked in a GP setting they will "asses"their trainig/experience offer them the chance to do some courses (provided by the ICGP AFAIK) at the candidates own cost. (I have the story in hard copy from the IMT but cannot find a link).
This in effect allows doctors who are working in a GP setting to pay to be trained while working in a service setting.

I suspect by have no evidence that this will strongly favour full time male doctors.

RobFowl

@ namga and @ dkpower

Sorry for the ranting tone of my replies. GP's feeling generally a bit under siege at the moment and getting (even more) defensive.....

namga

Robfowl,

No need to apologise.

My point about lowering the cost of training is as follows - essentially I feel the more it costs to train someone the greater the 'risk' the state is taking if this training is not utilised to the full capacity. Essentially the authorities in place would not have to worry as much about this person taking time off work etc.

Breezer

Traumadoc wrote: »

The LC is biased toward girls, girls are better at languages, 3 out of 4 compulsory subjects in the LC are languages.

I'm being pedantic here, but technically the only compulsory LC subject is Irish. Of course if you want to get into university that's a different story.

karlitob

RobFowl wrote: »

They way GP training is funded has next to nothing to do with any gender imbalance.
Are you really saying existing GP's and not the HSE should pay to train new GP's
Ask yourself why on earth would they even consider that????

There are 3500 GPs in the country. In 2010, the HSE paid E500m to GPs in fees for medical card patients. An average of E220,000 per GP.

Do you expect, the public sector to train GPs then send them off to work privately and take such huge chunks of money from the public purse after the public sector trained them? To me that doesn't make sense.

Why dont the HSE train GPs, then put them in a big building with other healthcare professionals and pay a regular salary. Obviously it would be performance related pay, ensuring quotas of patients would be seen. Is this not PCCC?

karlitob

panda100 wrote: »

Funny how they're not so quick to make similar gender re balances in nursing.

Very true.

karlitob

namga wrote: »

What are peoples views on this?

I have been told that it is much harder for a woman to secure a GP training place than a man. The reason given is that a much higher proportion of women apply, but gender balance is desired in the workforce.

There is also a perception that women will want to work shorter hours, and also that women are reluctant to work in rural areas.

This all seems quite unfair. Maybe a gender a balance is required, but it would be nice to see some proper evidence and a much better argument.

I have an assumption that there are not enough GP places out there. If there were sufficient GP places would this be an issue. I know of many people that are being refused access to a GP as waiting lists are so busy. I've been led to believe that GPs are limiting the number of training schemes? - Is this true. Are they protecting their interests?

RobFowl

karlitob wrote: »

There are 3500 GPs in the country. In 2010, the HSE paid E500m to GPs in fees for medical card patients. An average of E220,000 per GP.

Do you expect, the public sector to train GPs then send them off to work privately and take such huge chunks of money from the public purse after the public sector trained them? To me that doesn't make sense.

Why dont the HSE train GPs, then put them in a big building with other healthcare professionals and pay a regular salary. Obviously it would be performance related pay, ensuring quotas of patients would be seen. Is this not PCCC?

The 220k is a gross figure including payments to nurses, secretaries and is also less 21% with-holding tax.

GP practices are also run with 50-70% of the gross being overheads. Those figures are accurate AFAIK but view them as part of gross practice income (turnover) and absolutely not profit or a salary.

karlitob wrote: »

I have an assumption that there are not enough GP places out there. If there were sufficient GP places would this be an issue. I know of many people that are being refused access to a GP as waiting lists are so busy. I've been led to believe that GPs are limiting the number of training schemes? - Is this true. Are they protecting their interests?

Some GP's and organisations are indeed limiting GP places. This has been going on since the early 90's but is being opposed by a number of GP's ( a minority unfortunately) and more recently the competition authority and indeed the IMF !