That time of year when all trainees, myself included, frantically upload everything and harass our consultants for pointless tickbox-worthy workplace-based assessments for the sake of satisfying various all mighty judges who see you nothing more than a piece of meat in a foodwrapping factory. So long as you have all the correct labels, you're fit to go out to market!
I know many who have failed this year, or received "inadequate evidence presented to progress" on the basis of the most trivial things. I personally require more consultant level WBAs; but does this judge me as a good doctor? If my consultants haven't bothered to validate a WBA or meeting because they conveniently keep forgetting their login details, is that really a reason to penalise us trainees? The deanery should be investigating the technology-incompetent supervisors.
Particularly in surgical specialties, much responsibility is delegated to the registrars so I often will discuss cases directly with registrars rather than consultants. Additionally, it's rather out of my control when on the numerous occasions consultants will say "sorry find me tomorrow instead".
I do think if the deaneries want accurate reports of trainees, they should harass random individuals in the department. A 360 degree appraisal is far more informative than pointless CBDs. The deaneries should really push weight on the consultants.
I myself will frequently compete WBAs for my foundation doctors, and i encourage them to send them. It's a shame the consultants can't take on the same attitude.
It is massively hypocritical of Stella Vig and like-minded consultants who refuse to complete them. I refer to my tweet during ASiT 2015 (https://twitter.com/MrSteth/status/572011787966668800)
At the end of the day, it's here to stay. So as they say in Rome, just do it.
