mja.com.au | The Medical Journal of Australia

Home | Issues | MJA shop | MJA Careers | Contact | Topics | Search | RSS  | Login | Buy full access

Personal Perspective

Part-time specialty training — my experience

Meegan T Gun

MJA 2001; 174: 410-412
For editoral comment, see Sewell; see also Whitelaw & Nash

The problem - The idea - The experience - Changing attitudes - References
Register to be notified of new articles by e-mail - Current contents list - More articles on Education


  It is almost four years since I completed my training in radiology and, now that I have the time, I feel it is important to share my experiences with others, particularly women wishing to pursue specialty training.

Both the medical literature and popular press draw our attention to the statistics on women in medicine and particularly the lack of women in postgraduate training programs. In 1998, 57.8% of general practice trainees but only 33.8% of trainees in other specialties were women;1 in 1999, 44.1% of vocational trainees (GP and specialist) were women, but there were marked differences in the proportion of women training in individual specialties (ranging from 12.6% of surgery trainees to 66.7% of paediatrics trainees2) (Box 1).

Between 1989 and 1999 the proportion of women commencing medical training increased from 43.6% to 52.7%, while the proportion of female vocational trainees in the same period increased only marginally, from 43% to 43.7% (including trainees in general practice).2 Thus, the increasing number of women entering the medical workforce is not reflected in the proportion of women in specialist training.


The problem

It is very difficult to fulfil the rigorous requirements for specialist training and maintain a "normal" life. After five or six years at medical school, the thought of undertaking another four or five years of training is daunting. The Medical Labour Force 1998 report1 revealed that about 20% of specialists-in-training worked more than 65 hours per week, and the highest proportion of doctors working more than 80 hours per week were surgeons, internal medicine specialists, specialists-in-training and vocationally registered GPs.

Male medical practitioners are more likely to be in a relationship than women, and female practitioners in a relationship are more likely to work part-time (rather than full-time) than those not in a relationship.3

It has been noted that "female practitioners are more likely than male practitioners to have curtailed their careers for family reasons".3 This may involve suppressing career expectations, restricting choice in favour of career paths that provide greater flexibility and allow part-time work, prolonging the training process and/or limiting their role within the profession.

Barriers to career advancement that influence the structure of the medical workforce occur most noticeably during vocational training and the child-rearing period of a woman's life.3 Women in training programs who want to have children are at a great disadvantage. When is the best time? — during an intern year, before the Part 1 examination, between Parts 1 and 2, before or after a PhD or master's degree? Or perhaps during an overseas fellowship?

I was fortunate at the start of my radiology training to be assigned to a department with a very supportive director. After completing my internship I began my training immediately (this is now not allowed — at least one year of hospital work is required). After about four months I became pregnant.

Members of the department, including my fellow registrars, were supportive. At that stage they were all ahead of me in the training program. I did all the work that I could comfortably and safely perform, passed my Part 1 examination, and had my baby.

After seven months of maternity leave, I reluctantly returned to full-time work. This was extremely difficult for me — I wanted to continue my training, but not at the expense of spending little or no time with our daughter.


The idea

In the program at the same time was a female colleague who had already had one child during her training and was having similar thoughts about the difficulty of balancing job and family commitments. We decided to approach the heads of our departments and broach the idea of job sharing. The head of my department was extremely supportive of our plan. Our proposal was put to the warden of the College and accepted, and so began a long and successful partnership between myself, my colleague and the training program.



The experience

Our working arrangements changed from time to time depending on our hospital placements and on the need to fit in with fellow colleagues. We tried to cover each other's holidays where possible. Issues such as overtime payments, long service leave entitlements and holiday pay were not satisfactorily addressed — they remain important, outstanding items that will require resolution. The system worked very well for both of us, allowing time with our children and continuation of our training.

Initially there was some opposition to our arrangement from our contemporaries in the program, who were concerned that we would not fulfil our duties and that it would add to their workload. I do not believe this occurred.

My working partner completed her training almost two years before I finished and, as there was no one to continue to job-share with, I was permitted to work alone part-time.

Training took over seven years (instead of the usual five), and had I not been given the opportunity to work part-time I would probably not have completed the training. Some women have described the "elongated journey" to specialist qualification in negative terms, but others have found it more "rewarding".3 Certainly, my experience was not negative; the reward for me lay in the fact that at the end of the journey I had maintained a relationship, built a family and completed my training, so the extra time taken was well worth it.

During the period of our training, my colleague and I between us had five children (almost six, as I completed the last six months pregnant). I now work two and a half days per week in a public hospital, which is far more flexible than working in private practice. Although my priorities lie mainly with my family, I make a significant contribution to my work environment and my input will probably increase as my children get older.

The problems for women doing specialist training are similar worldwide. For example, in the United Kingdom, Maingay and Goldberg found that the "combination of four factors — manpower, duration of specialist training, working hours and maternity provisions — means that in the UK it is particularly difficult for women doctors with families to combine successful full-time specialist training with raising a family".4 Importantly, they noted that "the health care system cannot afford to waste these doctors". The Flexible Training Scheme has been introduced in the UK in an attempt to redress the situation.



Changing attitudes

The need for revised working patterns and part-time training posts not only arises because of the increased female representation in medicine, but also from changing perceptions of what is expected from all doctors, whether men or women, and the desire for a reasonable lifestyle. A 1994 survey of doctors in the Netherlands (most of whom were working full-time) found that only one-third of female doctors and two-thirds of male doctors wanted to work full-time in the future.5 In 1999, in Australia, only 6.8% of trainees were undertaking part-time training2 (Box 2).

Opinions on the issue of allowing part-time specialist training are divided. The Medical Training Review Panel has stated that "Change is required in the organisation and management of many of the specialist training programs so that female practitioners can have the opportunity to better participate in the training program and then, ultimately, within the medical workforce".2 Yet, general opinion among the leaders of the medical profession continues to favour full-time training. At a workshop in 19996 to assess progress in implementing the recommendations of the Brennan Report,7 there was a strong view expressed that any changes to training schemes should not increase the overall length of vocational training "in the process of making work practices and training schemes flexible for women".2

There is also a concern that "With the increasing proportion of female medical undergraduates, if the current preference for [postgraduate training in] general practice continues to predominate, it could be expected to contribute to a continued shortage of specialists and to increase the gender imbalance between general practice and specialist practice".8

It is not just women who are asking for more flexible training arrangements. The career expectations of male doctors also appear to be changing, with choices influenced by flexibility and manageable hours.

My training was certainly different from that of my contemporaries. I can not judge whether it was better or worse, or neither, but it certainly allowed me to fulfil my ambitions to become a qualified radiologist and to have a family. I can only hope more women will have the opportunity to do the same.


References

  1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Medical Labour Force 1998. Canberra: AIHW, 2000. (National Health Labour Force Series, No. 16) (AIHW Catalogue No. HWL 15.)
  2. Medical Training Review Panel. Third Report. Canberra: MTRP and Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, August 1999.
  3. Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee. Influences on participation in the Australian medical workforce. Sydney: AMWAC, 1998. (AMWAC Report 1998.4.)
  4. Maingay J, Goldberg I. Flexible training opportunities in the European Union. Med Educ 1998; 32: 543-548.
  5. Cohen-Schotanos J, Huisjes HJ. [Status of the job market of physicians who started their education in Groningen in 1982 and 1983.] Ned Tijdschr Geneesk 1994; 138: 1434-1437.
  6. Medical Workforce Training and Employment Workshop — April 1999. Summary of outcomes. Sydney: Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee, 2000. Summary available at <http://amwac.health.nsw.gov.au/corporate-services/amwac/movingforward.html>. Accessed 5 February 2001.
  7. Brennan PJ and Associates. Trainee selection in Australian medical colleges. Canberra: Medical Training Review Panel and Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services, January 1998. (Publication No. 2291.)
  8. Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee. Female participation in the Australian medical workforce. Sydney: AMWAC and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 1996. (AMWAC Report 1996.7.)


Authors' Details

Department of Radiology, North Western Adelaide Health Service
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital Campus, Adelaide, SA.

Meegan T Gun, MBBS, FRANZCR, Radiologist.

Reprints will not be available from the author.
Correspondence: Dr M T Gun, Department of Radiology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital Campus, 28 Woodville Rd, Woodville South, SA 5011.
olmtosiATchariot.net.au

©MJA 2001
Make a comment


Home | Issues | MJA shop | Terms of use | MJA Careers | More... | Contact | Topics | Search | RSS 

mja.com.au | The Medical Journal of Australia  


Readers may print a single copy for personal use. No further reproduction or distribution of the articles should proceed without the permission of the publisher. For permission, contact the Australasian Medical Publishing Company.
Journalists are welcome to write news stories based on what they read here, but should acknowledge their source as "an article published on the Internet by The Medical Journal of Australia <http://www.mja.com.au>".

<URL: http://www.mja.com.au/> © 2001 Medical Journal of Australia.
 

1: Female vocational trainees (%), by College and State/Territory, 19992
 
College NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS NT ACT Total

Anaesthetists 54.5 43.0 51.6 45.6 51.1 54.5 0 30.8 49.0
Dermatologists 40.0 33.3 36.4 25.0 33.3 - - - 36.0
Emergency Medicine 47.6 39.0 34.7 38.2 24.2 35.0 * * 39.4
General Practitioners 63.2 63.1 49.1 57.3 61.8 61.0 53.2 52.3† 58.9
Medical Administrators‡ 38.7 13.0 25.0 60.0 23.1 0 0 25.0 25.7
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 56.3 60.0 56.6 54.1 55.5 42.9 100.0 60.0 56.8
Ophthalmologists 21.1 33.3 9.1 0 16.7 0 0 - 19.8
Pathologists 44.4 54.1 34.5 47.1 61.1 60.0 0.0 28.6 42.7
Physicians -
  Adult Medicine
31.9 39.7 46.2 29.7 39.5 25.0 33.3 25.0 36.7
Physicians - Paediatrics 67.4 56.8 63.0 77.8 76.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 66.7
Physicians -
   Occupational Medicine
16.0 25.0 33.3 0 11.1 - - - 16.3
Physicians -
  Public Health Medicine‡
50.0 50.0 43.7 60.0 50.0 0 66.7 50.0 50.7
Physicians -
   Rehabilitation Medicine
20.0 36.4 0 66.7 - - - - 26.8
Psychiatrists 46.2 41.5 47.4 46.9 49.4 50.0 40.0 44.4 45.9
Radiologists 32.9 25.7 25.0 51.7 19.0 25.0 * 20.0 30.4
Surgeons 10.5 15.0 12.1 19.0 9.1 0 0 33.0 12.6
Total 44.8 43.3 41.6 44.7 45.1 45.1 50.6 45.2 44.1

- Indicates no trainees at all (male or female).
* NT is included in the SA total and ACT is included in the NSW total.
† Includes southern NSW.
‡ The data provided are for 1998.
Back to text
 
2: Number of trainees undertaking part-time training, by College, 1995 to 19992
College 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Anaesthetists 2 1 4 1 1
Dermatologists 0 0 0 0 0
Emergency Medicine* - - - 67 65
General Practitioners 327 234 247 183 215
Medical Administrators† - - - - -
Obstetricians and
   Gynaecologists
2 2 5 0 2
Ophthalmologists 0 0 1 0 1
Pathologists 1 2 2 3 3
Physicians - Adult Medicine‡ 21 23 2 6 8
Physicians - Paediatrics‡ - - 12 17 15
Physicians - Occupational
   Medicine
0 0 0 - 2
Physicians - Public Health
   Medicine
3 6 5 5  
Physicians - Rehabilitation
   Medicine
0 0 2 3 4
Psychiatrists 16 28 16 52 70
Radiologists 1 1 - - 1
Surgeons 0 0 0 0 0
Total 372 296 296 337 387
% Of total trainees - - 5.2% 6.1% 6.8%

*Unknown because College database does not record this information. Figures for 1998 and 1999 are an estimate based on 10% of total trainees.
† Unknown because College database does not record this information, as hospital employing the trainee makes these arrangements.
‡ Includes paediatric medicine for 1995 and 1996.
Back to text