Let down by failure in communication

I REFER to the letter “Solutions to train doctors” (The Star, Feb 28) which was a reply to “Obstacles to medical specialisation” (The Star, Feb 25). It is my hope that this piece will promote reflection and discussion on one aspect of postgraduate medical training in this country. Alas, I do not claim to have expertise or to have all the answers in this regard.

While I hold the authors with high esteem, allow me to be frank with my opinion that the letter ultimately misses the mark. Although I am glad that the plight of doctors in training has been acknowledged, the authors appear to have shifted the blame onto other parties and subsequently jumped to offering several solutions which are on the horizon but do not fully address the underlying issues raised by the parent in “Obstacles to medical specialisation”. What happens to the doctors already in training programmes now?

As someone who has experienced the Health Ministry’s parallel pathway programme, I wish to share my perspective that many doctors in postgraduate medical training feel undersupported and undervalued with regards to the structure of their training, which is plagued by inconsistencies and poor communication of changes.

While I see promise in the revamped training programmes proposed, it is vital that good policy aspirations are not derailed by paternalistic implementation and resistance to receiving feedback.

Ironically, the opening of the second paragraph in “Solutions to train doctors” brings me back to the underlying problem. Similar to how the concerned parent in “Obstacles to medical specialisation” was described as “understandably unaware” of the aforementioned solutions, doctors in training are often frustratingly unaware of what is going on with regards to the structure of their training programme. How can these doctors take responsibility of their clinical learning effectively?

In some developed countries, national training surveys are conducted with the input of both train- ers and trainees to gauge the quality of postgraduate medical training. Thus, if the authors aspire for postgraduate medical training in Malaysia to be cutting-edge, I hope they will take the following point into account.

The crux of the matter is that openness to feedback and good communication are essential components in the development of an effective teaching course, let alone a postgraduate medical training programme. If this aspect is neglected, I fear that the solutions proposed will run the risk of reeking like stale campaign promises.