MTAS standard responses
Additional standard responses for applicant queries following the end of short-listing
Response to request to see short-listing score/reference to DPA:
Dear applicant
Thanks for your enquiry. Recruitment to specialty/GP training programmes for 2007 is running to a single national timetable for the first time. As you will know, this comprises two rounds of recruitment, the first for all applicants and a second for those who did not secure a training place in Round 1. The two rounds comprise the full recruitment process.
This recruitment process includes a timetable for providing feedback for those applicants who request it, including details of their short-listing score. The timing for this is following the completion of the full recruitment process - i.e. at the end of Round 2. More details on how to request feedback on your application results will be available at that time.
Regards
The MMC team
Response to enquiry about how to lodge a complaint or appeal against the short-listing outcome:
Dear applicant
Thanks for your enquiry. Recruitment to specialty/GP training programmes for 2007 is running to a single national timetable for the first time. As you will know, this comprises two rounds of recruitment, the first for all applicants and a second for those who did not secure a training place in Round 1. The two rounds comprise the full recruitment process.
This recruitment process includes a complaints procedure for those applicants who believe that their application has not been dealt with fairly. The timing for this is following the completion of the full recruitment process - i.e. at the end of Round 2. More details on the complaints procedure will be available at that time.
Regards
The MMC team
Standard e-mail responses to queries received by MMC – these have also been shared with the MTAS helpdesk:
26 February 2007
Response to queries about the availability of shortlisting results:
Dear applicant
Thank you for your enquiry.
We realise that it is frustrating that not all shortlisting results were available from 09:00 yesterday. The Units of Application(UoAs)/deaneries have been working around the clock to complete this work, but received a higher than expected number of applications for some specialties in some areas. This additional workload, together with a desire to ensure that the new short-listing scoring frameworks were implemented consistently across all specialties and locations, has meant that some UoAs need additional time to complete the task.
The UoAs and MTAS will ensure that any outstanding shortlisting results are made available just as soon as possible.
Please rest assured that your application will not be adversely affected by the delay.
Regards
The MMC team
_______________________________________________
Response to MTAS crashing this morning:
Dear applicant
The MTAS website is very busy at present, due to an exceptionally high number of applicants accessing their application forms once they’ve logged in to view their results. The MTAS team is looking for a way to reduce the impact this has on the service so that the people wanting to download their applications don’t affect those who just want to login to see their results.
Clearly there has been an initial rush of people wanting to see their results. The system responses will get faster as this initial surge is dealt with.
Regards
The MMC Team
_______________________________________________________
Response to query asking for details on why an applicant wasn’t shortlisted:
Dear applicant
Thank you for your enquiry. Recruitment to specialty/GP training programmes for 2007 is running to a single national timetable for the first time. As you will know, this comprises two rounds of recruitment, the first for all applicants and a second for those who did not secure a training place in Round 1. The two rounds comprise the full recruitment process.
This recruitment process includes a timetable for providing feedback for those applicants who request it. The timing for this is following the completion of the full recruitment process - i.e. at the end of Round 2. More details on how to request feedback on your application results will be available at that time.
Regards
The MMC team
Handling plan for the current MTAS issues – 26 February
Purpose
This document provides standard lines on a range of issues that have occurred over the last few days and covers issues which the BMA are likely to cover in their press release.
The Annex provides background to the issues that are covered in the lines to take and further lines on additional issues.
Line to take
We have received a healthy response to the recruitment to Specialty Registrar programmes in 2007.
The deaneries and assessors have worked extremely hard to ensure that all applications have been thoroughly assessed. The deaneries are very proud of their reputations as fair recruiters and would like to reassure applicants that the assessment process has been carried out with the upmost integrity.
By Thursday last week, it was clear that the deaneries needed some extra time to complete their short-listing. Applicants were alerted immediately and advised that short-listing results would not be available until 26 February. By close on 26 February most short-listing had been completed with candidates advised of the results. Notification of short-listing results in
We realise that this delay has been frustrating but want to reassure applicants that they will not be adversely affected in any way. All applicants will be able to book interviews as required.
The BMA have raised concerns about the security of the service. We are pleased that people are being vigilant and reporting any concerns quickly. All allegations of improper use of the service will be investigated and appropriate action taken. The MTAS service provides a clear on-line audit trail to aid investigation. We will investigate, and can readily identify, any misuse of the service that is reported. If there is any evidence to suggest that this is the case, we will notify the relevant Postgraduate Dean who will be expected to take action. If relevant, a referral may be made to the GMC. A whole system audit will be completed in the next few days.
The BMA have also raised concerns about the process for inviting applicants to interview in
Annex
Additional background and lines to take
Short listing delays
Issue
Some deaneries have not completed their short-listing so applicants have not received confirmation of whether they have been invited to interview. Applicants were advised of the initial delay to short-listing results last Thursday but will only find out about any further delays when they log into their account on MTAS. Debbie has chased the 4 SHAs who appear to be having the most problems. Northern deanery appear to be on track to finish today [26 February]. North Western are clearly struggling and are unlikely to finish today.
Suggested line to take
The deaneries and assessors have worked extremely hard to ensure that all applications have been thoroughly assessed. The deaneries are very proud of their reputations as fair recruiters and would like to reassure applicants that the assessment process has been carried out with the upmost integrity.
By Thursday last week, it was clear that the deaneries needed some extra time to complete their short-listing. Applicants were alerted immediately and advised that short-listing results would not be available until 26 February. By close on 26 February most short-listing had been completed with candidates advised of the results. Notification of short-listing results in
We realise that this delay has been frustrating but want to reassure applicants that they will not be adversely affected in any way. All applicants will be able to book interviews as required.
Problems with MTAS website – applicant side
Issue
The volume of traffic to the site this morning [26 February] resulted in a dip in performance. The main reason for this was that successful applicants are retrieving and printing their applications again. This was unexpected but the service is now performing well.
Line to take
The MTAS site was very busy this morning, due to an exceptionally high number of applicants accessing their application forms once they’ve logged in to view their results. The service responses improved as the initial surge passed.
Clashing interviews
Issue
Some applicants will have been offered interviews in some specialties at the same time as others they have been short-listed for. This should be kept to a minimum because of the work Sarah did when the plans were submitted to check for obvious clashes. Where there is a clash, applicants should contact the deaneries to agree alternative arrangements. However, the BMA have reported that some applicants have been told they must chose between the 2 interview offers.
Lines to take
Where applicants have been offered interviews in specialties where the schedules clash, they should contact the deaneries concerned to make arrangements for their interviews.
Problems with interview booking in
Issue
Applicants are reporting that they have been invited to interviews in the wrong specialty or level. This appears to be a particular issue in
Lines to take
It is the responsibility of the individual UoAs/deaneries to invite applicants to interview. Unfortunately, given the number of interviews to arrange, there have been a few errors in the way some UoAs have invited applicants to specific interviews.
If an applicant thinks that they have been invited to interview for the ‘wrong’ specialty or at the wrong level, they should not book a place until they have contacted the UoA concerned. If an applicant has already booked a place at what they believe to be an inappropriate event they should still contact the UoA. The UoA will make the necessary arrangements to have the invalid booking withdrawn, and advise the applicant about the correct interview event.
Randomised selection of applicants for interview
Issue
The BMA have alleged that some deaneries have selected their short-list at random from top scorers, where they had more top scorers than interview slots.
Lines to take
[DN: waiting input from Alison]. Everybody involved in assessment received training to ensure that there was a consistent approach across the country. This guidance included advice on what to do if there was a number of people in receipt of the same score. This advised that…..
Security issues
Issue
There have been a small number of complaints received over the security of the system. The two main concerns have been that assessors have had access to the personal and equal opportunities information and that assessors are able to amend scores for applicants they are not authorised to assess.
Action has been taken to remove the equal opportunities information for all applicants. This has presented some problems for deaneries in identifying whether applicants with disabilities have any special requirements for interview. The deaneries have received guidance on how to manage this.
The Applicant Finder has also been temporarily suspended because this allowed any deanery user to search for an applicant by their reference number, and therefore confirm the identify of particular applicants. The lack of Applicant Finder is creating some problems and we are looking to re-activate it shortly.
MTAS has been set up in such a way that any assessor can see all applications to the Unit of Application they are assessing applications for. This meant that assessors for more than one specialty level could access their applications via one account. However, it means that they can also enter and overwrite scores for all applicants within the UoA.
The MMC team has received only 2 complaints along these lines and do not feel it appropriate to post proactive messages about this issue. However, DH has received some strong representations about this from the BMA and feel it important to have some reassuring messages for applicants on the MTAS website.
Suggested line to take
General line on security
We have had some concerns raised with us regarding the security of the site. One of the benefits of the MTAS system is that it provides an electronic audit trail. Any allegations of improper use of the service can be investigated and appropriate action taken. We will investigate, and can readily identify, any misuse of the service that is reported to us. If there is any evidence to suggest that this is the case, we will notify the relevant Postgraduate Dean who will be expected to take action. If relevant, a referral may be made to the GMC.
Specific issues
We have received some specific representations relating to assessors amending scores inappropriately. Any such allegations will be investigated if reported to the relevant Postgraduate Dean or MTAS. In addition, once shortlisting is complete, we will audit the scores to confirm that none of the assessors have scored any applicants in specialties and levels they were not authorised to.
We have received some specific representations relating to assessors accessing personal and equal opportunities information. Although we have not received any specific evidence to support this, we have taken steps by removing access to certain parts of the application information. Deaneries have also taken steps to ensure that their processes are robust and the anonymity of applicants retained. This has included, in one case, asking all clinical long-listers to come together in one room to undertake electronic long-listing under supervision to ensure that long-listers were not accessing any information inappropriately.
Problems entering scores on MTAS
Issue
There were problems on Thursday of last week in entering scores onto MTAS. These problems have been resolved but
Line to take
Deaneries reported problems last Thursday saving scores on MTAS. This problem was investigated and resolved within 2 hours. There have been no further problems.
Complaints Process following selection into specialty training
Background
1. At the request of the MMC UK Strategy Group, a national process for recruitment into specialty training has been established from 2007.
2. The UK Strategy Group in its Statement of the four UK Health Departments on transition into specialty training http://www.mmc.nhs.uk/pages/specialties gave a broad description of the process which is in keeping with the Principles for Recruitment into Specialty Training set by the Postgraduate Medical and Training Board (PMETB - http://www.pmetb.org.uk/index.php?id=703 ).
3. Operational responsibility for recruitment into specialty training programmes rests with the postgraduate deans who in turn are accountable to the Strategic Health Authorities in
4. For practical purposes, complaints about the process will be sent to the relevant postgraduate dean leading the appropriate Unit of Application (UoA) for recruitment.
5. Responsibility for employment rests with employing bodies, usually trusts or other health organisations. Whilst employers are involved in the selection process and have agreed to its use for appointing trainees who will become employees in their health organisations, they are not responsible or accountable for the selection process itself.
6. If an applicant is selected and offered a placement on a training programme through the national recruitment process, the employing body ultimately has the right not to offer employment but must be able to offer robust reasons for failing to do so.
Principles of the Complaints Process
7. It is inevitable that some applicants will be disappointed by the outcome of the recruitment process, as it is a competitive one. A complaints process is an essential safeguard against unfairness.
8. However complaints cannot be made because the applicant simply disagrees with the principle of the process or the judgements or outcomes that have been made by the appointment panel. But where processes or procedures have not been followed, or there is evidence of unfairness in how the process has been implemented, and the objectivity of decisions is called into question, applicants may request a review by MTAS or the appropriate Postgraduate Dean (first stage review).
9. If complainants are not satisfied that their complaint has been responded to adequately, they may subsequently pursue a second-stage complaint process in order to have the process considered independently.
10. Complaints will not be accepted against the fact that an application was judged insufficiently strong to merit competitive appointment to a post or programme in the absence of reason to believe that there were failings in the way in which the process was carried out.
11. The type of process or procedural failure that could give grounds for a complaint include:
- the electronic portal and subsequent electronic processes interfered with the appropriate submission of an application resulting in a material administrative error or administrative irregularity
- extraneous factors, material or information were inappropriately taken into account during the short listing and selection process;
- there is evidence of prejudice, bias or conflict of interest during the selection process
12. The detailed procedure for making a complaint will differ according to the stage a decision or action was taken.
Complaint against not being able to submit an application: a complaint may be lodged if an applicant believes they were unable to submit their application for technical or personal reasons. NB. This process is already complete for round 1 and the section below sets out the process that was followed, and will be followed in Round 2.
Complaint against the electronic handling of the application: a complaint may be lodged if the applicant believes that the electronic application process involving submission of an application or the subsequent electronic process making preliminary offers and confirming this has negatively affected the candidate's application;
Complaint against the selection process: a complaint may be lodged if the applicant believes the process for implementing the short listing and interview/selection process by the UoA has negatively affected the candidate's application
Complaints against not being able to submit an application
13. A complaint relating to not being able to submit an application for technical or personal reasons should be lodged with scrutinypanel@mtas.org.uk within 48 hours of the closing date and time.
14. Late submission due to absence, illness or accident are normally not permitted. Providing the applicant has already enrolled, they should apply for Round 2 allocation if they were unable to submit an application in Round 1. A scrutiny process will only be invoked in Round 2 if there are technical problems during the application window for Round 2. An applicant whose scrutiny application was denied in Round 2 would only be eligible for relevant unallocated posts at the end of Round 2.
15. If the applicant is seeking the right to apply after the deadline, they must:
· Be able to prove that their application was rejected during the specific period of system downtime/poor performance, and
· That they tried to resubmit once the system was fully functioning, and
· They were still unable to submit the application on a subsequent attempt, or
· They were continuously unable to access the Internet from a specific date and time which relates to the period of system downtime/poor performance
16. Applicants are required to provide specific information about system downtime or period of poor performance to the scrutiny panel at the time they submit their complaint:
17. The scrutiny panel will meet within 5 working days of the complaint being lodged. For the late submission to be upheld, there must be a direct co-relation between the information provided by MTAS and by the applicant.
18. Applicants will be informed of the decision of the scrutiny panel within 3 working days of meeting.
19. If a complaint is upheld the Chair of the scrutiny panel will arrange for the applicant to submit their completed application within an agreed period of time.
Complaints against the electronic handling of the application (MTAS)
20. A complaint relating to the electronic handling of the application should be lodged in writing to the postgraduate dean leading the deanery/group of deaneries to whom their first choice application was made, within ten working days of the outcome of both rounds of the application process being concluded. The final date for complaints to be lodged will be published at the end of the recruitment round.
21. The complaint should set out the reasons why they believe the way MTAS processed their application may have disadvantaged them
22. A deanery administrator will acknowledge the complaint within five working days of receipt. They will then consider the complaint to confirm that it relates to the electronic handling of the application and confirm to the complainant within 5 working days if this is the case. Where this is the case, they will send the complaint to MTAS.
23. MTAS will then investigate the complaint and will write to the complainant about the outcome of the investigation within ten working days of receiving the complaint from the deanery. If this timescale cannot be met the complainant will be informed and advised of the reason for the longer timescale and will be given a date by which a response will be made.
24. If the complainant is not satisfied with the account given, the applicant can proceed to a second-stage complaint about the electronic handling of the application. If they do so, MTAS may request a restatement of the reasons why the electronic handling was believed to have been unfair to ensure that only unresolved issues are examined.
25. Where a complainant believes that their concerns have not been addressed and wishes to proceed with a second-stage complaint, it should be considered by a panel comprising a representative of one of the Departments of Health of the
26. The panel should consider the complainant’s statement of complaint, the documents setting out the prescribed procedures, and a written statement of the procedure actually followed by MTAS (which should be obtained for the purpose of considering the complaint if it is not already available).
27. All documents to be considered at the second-stage complaints should be made available to the applicant, who should be given the opportunity to make further representations in writing.
28. The complaint will usually proceed on the basis of the paperwork without hearing oral evidence or representations. However, any written representation from the applicant why an oral hearing may be necessary will be considered.
29. The panel must respond within twenty working days of the request for a second-stage complaint being lodged. The outcome of the panel is final.
30. If the complaints is upheld by the panel, it will be the responsibility of the representative from one of the Departments of Health of the
31. The postgraduate dean (or deputy) of the relevant UoA will meet with the applicant within 15 working days to decide the further course of action.
Complaint about the selection process
32. Applicants who have submitted an application to a UoA (defined as the administrative group – usually a deanery or group of deaneries – responsible for receiving applications, short listing applications and setting up local interview/selection processes) can complain about the process if they consider that the short listing and/or interview/selection process has been administered unfairly or in a way which has negatively affected the candidate's application. The complaint must be lodged in writing to the Postgraduate Dean leading the Deanery/group of Deaneries against which the complaint is being made, stating in full the reasons why the applicant thinks the process has not been followed properly.
33. Complaints will only be accepted at the end of the second round of the recruitment process. The complaint must be received within ten working days of the final date of recruitment (this date for complaints to be lodged will be published at the end of the recruitment round).
34. The relevant Postgraduate Dean should arrange for the complaint to be investigated by a senior person within the deanery (e.g. associate dean, head of workforce, business manager). The Postgraduate Dean (or deputy) should not be involved in the initial investigation as he/she may be required to participate in the second-stage process. The complainant should receive a response to the complaint either in writing or by face-to-face discussion within ten working days of the complaint having been received.
35. If the complainant is not satisfied with the account given, the applicant can proceed to the second-stage complaint process.
36. If the complainant wishes to go to a second-stage complaint, a formal written request must be received by the UoA within ten working days of the response to the initial complaint being received.
37. The Postgraduate Dean will arrange for a Panel to consider the second-stage complaint. The Panel should be led by a Lay Chair, and should consist of two consultants from outside the specialty but who have been trained and participated in the recruitment process; the Postgraduate Dean (or deputy), a trainee and a HR Director (or deputy) from a trust/health organisation. All panel members will have received up to date training in equal opportunity in recruitment and selection. The Panel should meet within twenty working days of the second stage complaint being lodged. No member of the Panel should have been involved in the first-stage process.
38. The Panel will share all documentary evidence with the applicant at least five working days prior to the Panel meeting.
39. The Panel will invite the applicant to attend a face-to face panel hearing. The applicant can be accompanied by a colleague or friend to help support them in the process but this should not normally be a legal representative or family member.
40. The Panel will inform the applicant of the outcome of its deliberations in writing as soon as they are available and normally within ten working days. This will be accompanied by the written record of the meeting. The decision of the Panel is final.
41. If the complaint is upheld by the Panel, the Postgraduate Dean will meet with the applicant to decide the further course of action within fifteen working days of the notification being sent to the complainant.
March 2007
Complaints Process following selection into specialty training
Background
1.42. At the request of the MMC UK Strategy Group, a national process for recruitment into specialty training has been established from 2007.
2.43. The UK Strategy Group in its Statement of the four UK Health Departments on transition into specialty training http://www.mmc.nhs.uk/pages/specialties gave a broad description of the process which is in keeping with the Principles for Recruitment into Specialty Training set by the Postgraduate Medical and Training Board (PMETB - http://www.pmetb.org.uk/index.php?id=703 ).
3.44. Operational responsibility for recruitment into specialty training programmes rests with the postgraduate deans who in turn are accountable to the Strategic Health Authorities in
4.45. For practical purposes, complaints about the process will be sent to the relevant postgraduate dean leading the appropriate Unit of Application (UoA) for recruitment.
5.46. Responsibility for employment rests with employing bodies, usually trusts or other health organisations. Whilst employers are involved in the selection process and have agreed to its use for appointing trainees who will become employees in their health organisations, they are not responsible or accountable for the selection process itself.
6.47. If an applicant is selected and offered a placement on a training programme through the national recruitment process, the employing body ultimately has the right not to offer employment but must be able to offer robust reasons for failing to do so.
Principles of the Complaints Process
7.48. It is inevitable that some applicants will be disappointed by the outcome of the recruitment process, as it is a competitive one. A complaints process is an essential safeguard against unfairness.
8.49. However complaints cannot be made because the applicant simply disagrees with the principle of the process or the judgements or outcomes that have been made by the appointment panel. But where processes or procedures have not been followed, or there is evidence of unfairness in how the process has been implemented, and the objectivity of decisions is called into question, applicants may request a review by MTAS or the appropriate Postgraduate Dean (first stage review).
9.50. If complainants are not satisfied that their complaint has been responded to adequately, they may subsequently pursue a second-stage complaint process in order to have the process considered independently.
10.51. Complaints will not be accepted against the fact that an application was judged insufficiently strong to merit competitive appointment to a post or programme in the absence of reason to believe that there were failings in the way in which the process was carried out.
11.52. The type of process or procedural failure that could give grounds for a complaint include:
i.iv. the electronic portal and subsequent electronic processes interfered with the appropriate submission of an application resulting in a material administrative error or administrative irregularity
ii.v. extraneous factors, material or information were inappropriately taken into account during the short listing and selection process;
iii.vi. there is evidence of prejudice, bias or conflict of interest during the selection process
12.53. The detailed procedure for making a complaint will differ according to the stage a decision or action was taken.
Complaint against not being able to submit an application: a complaint may be lodged if an applicant believes they were unable to submit their application for technical or personal reasons. NB. This process is already complete for round 1 and the section below sets out the process that was followed, and will be followed in Round 2.
Complaint against the electronic handling of the application: a complaint may be lodged if the applicant believes that the electronic application process involving submission of an application or the subsequent electronic process making preliminary offers and confirming this has negatively affected the candidate's application;
Complaint against the selection process: a complaint may be lodged if the applicant believes the process for implementing the short listing and interview/selection process by the UoA has negatively affected the candidate's application
Complaints against not being able to submit an application
13.54. A complaint relating to not being able to submit an application for technical or personal reasons should be lodged with scrutinypanel@mtas.org.uk within 48 hours of the closing date and time.
14.55. Late submission due to absence, illness or accident are normally not permitted. Providing the applicant has already enrolled, they should apply for Round 2 allocation if they were unable to submit an application in Round 1. A scrutiny process will only be invoked in Round 2 if there are technical problems during the application window for Round 2. An applicant whose scrutiny application was denied in Round 2 would only be eligible for relevant unallocated posts at the end of Round 2.
15.56. If the applicant is seeking the right to apply after the deadline, they must:
· Be able to prove that their application was rejected during the specific period of system downtime/poor performance, and
· That they tried to resubmit once the system was fully functioning, and
· They were still unable to submit the application on a subsequent attempt, or
· They were continuously unable to access the Internet from a specific date and time which relates to the period of system downtime/poor performance
16.57. Applicants are required to provide specific information about system downtime or period of poor performance to the scrutiny panel at the time they submit their complaint:
17.58. The scrutiny panel will meet within 5 working days of the complaint being lodged. For the late submission to be upheld, there must be a direct co-relation between the information provided by MTAS and by the applicant.
18.59. Applicants will be informed of the decision of the scrutiny panel within 3 working days of meeting.
19.60. If a complaint is upheld the Chair of the scrutiny panel will arrange for the applicant to submit their completed application within an agreed period of time.
Complaints against the electronic handling of the application (MTAS)
20.61. A complaint relating to the electronic handling of the application should be lodged in writing to the postgraduate dean leading the deanery/group of deaneries to whom their first choice application was made, within ten working days of the outcome of both rounds of the application process being concluded. The final date for complaints to be lodged will be published at the end of the recruitment round.
21.62. The complaint should set out the reasons why they believe the way MTAS processed their application may have disadvantaged them
22.63. A deanery administrator will acknowledge the complaint within five working days of receipt. They will then consider the complaint to confirm that it relates to the electronic handling of the application and confirm to the complainant within 5 working days if this is the case. Where this is the case, they will send the complaint to MTAS.
23.64. MTAS will then investigate the complaint and will write to the complainant about the outcome of the investigation within ten working days of receiving the complaint from the deanery. If this timescale cannot be met the complainant will be informed and advised of the reason for the longer timescale and will be given a date by which a response will be made.
24.65. If the complainant is not satisfied with the account given, the applicant can proceed to a second-stage complaint about the electronic handling of the application. If they do so, MTAS may request a restatement of the reasons why the electronic handling was believed to have been unfair to ensure that only unresolved issues are examined.
25.66. Where a complainant believes that their concerns have not been addressed and wishes to proceed with a second-stage complaint, it should be considered by a panel comprising a representative of one of the Departments of Health of the
26.67. The panel should consider the complainant’s statement of complaint, the documents setting out the prescribed procedures, and a written statement of the procedure actually followed by MTAS (which should be obtained for the purpose of considering the complaint if it is not already available).
27.68. All documents to be considered at the second-stage complaints should be made available to the applicant, who should be given the opportunity to make further representations in writing.
28.69. The complaint will usually proceed on the basis of the paperwork without hearing oral evidence or representations. However, any written representation from the applicant why an oral hearing may be necessary will be considered.
29.70. The panel must respond within twenty working days of the request for a second-stage complaint being lodged. The outcome of the panel is final.
30.71. If the complaints is upheld by the panel, it will be the responsibility of the representative from one of the Departments of Health of the
31.72. The postgraduate dean (or deputy) of the relevant UoA will meet with the applicant within 15 working days to decide the further course of action.
Complaint about the selection process
32.73. Applicants who have submitted an application to a UoA (defined as the administrative group – usually a deanery or group of deaneries – responsible for receiving applications, short listing applications and setting up local interview/selection processes) can complain about the process if they consider that the short listing and/or interview/selection process has been administered unfairly or in a way which has negatively affected the candidate's application. The complaint must be lodged in writing to the Postgraduate Dean leading the Deanery/group of Deaneries against which the complaint is being made, stating in full the reasons why the applicant thinks the process has not been followed properly.
33.74. Complaints will only be accepted at the end of the second round of the recruitment process. The complaint must be received within ten working days of the final date of recruitment (this date for complaints to be lodged will be published at the end of the recruitment round).
34.75. The relevant Postgraduate Dean should arrange for the complaint to be investigated by a senior person within the deanery (e.g. associate dean, head of workforce, business manager). The Postgraduate Dean (or deputy) should not be involved in the initial investigation as he/she may be required to participate in the second-stage process. The complainant should receive a response to the complaint either in writing or by face-to-face discussion within ten working days of the complaint having been received.
35.76. If the complainant is not satisfied with the account given, the applicant can proceed to the second-stage complaint process.
36.77. If the complainant wishes to go to a second-stage complaint, a formal written request must be received by the UoA within ten working days of the response to the initial complaint being received.
37.78. The Postgraduate Dean will arrange for a Panel to consider the second-stage complaint. The Panel should be led by a Lay Chair, and should consist of two consultants from outside the specialty but who have been trained and participated in the recruitment process; the Postgraduate Dean (or deputy), a trainee and a HR Director (or deputy) from a trust/health organisation. All panel members will have received up to date training in equal opportunity in recruitment and selection. The Panel should meet within twenty working days of the second stage complaint being lodged. No member of the Panel should have been involved in the first-stage process.
38.79. The Panel will share all documentary evidence with the applicant at least five working days prior to the Panel meeting.
39.80. The Panel will invite the applicant to attend a face-to face panel hearing. The applicant can be accompanied by a colleague or friend to help support them in the process but this should not normally be a legal representative or family member.
40.81. The Panel will inform the applicant of the outcome of its deliberations in writing as soon as they are available and normally within ten working days. This will be accompanied by the written record of the meeting. The decision of the Panel is final.
82. If the complaint is upheld by the Panel, the Postgraduate Dean will meet with the applicant to decide the further course of action within fifteen working days of the notification being sent to the complainant.
March 2007
How do I get feedback about why I wasn’t shortlisted?
Recruitment to specialty/GP training programmes for 2007 is running to a single national timetable for the first time. As you will know, this comprises two rounds of recruitment, the first for all applicants and a second for those who did not secure a training place in Round 1. The two rounds comprise the full recruitment process.
This recruitment process includes a timetable for providing feedback for those applicants who request it. The timing for this is following the completion of the full recruitment process - i.e. at the end of Round 2. More details on how to request feedback on your application results will be available at that time.
I’ve been invited to book an interview in the wrong specialty/level, what should I do?
If an applicant thinks that they have been invited to interview for the ‘wrong’ specialty or at the wrong level, they should not book a place until they have contacted the UoA concerned. If an applicant has already booked a place at what they believe to be an inappropriate event they should still contact the UoA. The UoA will make the necessary arrangements to have the invalid booking withdrawn, and advise the applicant about the correct interview event.
I’ve been invited to clashing interviews, what should I do?
Where applicants have been offered interviews in specialties where the schedules clash, they should contact the deaneries concerned to make alternative arrangements, if possible.
When will all short-listing be completed?
We expect all short-listing to be complete by Wednesday 28 February. Regular updates will appear on the MTAS site until all short-listing results have been announced.
We realise that this delay has been frustrating but want to reassure applicants that they will not be adversely affected in any way. All applicants will be able to book interviews as required.
My referee still hasn’t been contacted and my interview is this week, what should I do?
If your referees have not been contacted, you should log in to your MTAS account and check that the e-mail address you have provided for your referees is correct. If you have entered the e-mail address incorrectly, you can change it and MTAS will automatically send a reference request to the new e-mail address.
If the e-mail address has been entered correctly, but your referee has not received a reference request from MTAS, you may want to consider the following:
• Ask your referee(s) to check their ‘junk’ e-mail folder
• Ask your referee(s) to check their ‘spam’ filters
• Ask your referee(s) to provide an alternative e-mail address
Please note: the original requested date for references of 24 February was used to help ensure that as many references as possible were available before interviews took place. While we would prefer for references to be submitted as soon as possible, and ideally by the end of March, please remember this is not mandatory and will in not affect the outcome of any interviews attended. You should note, however, that a contract of employment cannot be issued if references remain outstanding once you have been successfully allocated to a training place.
If your referee still doesn’t receive a request, please contact the MTAS helpdesk: helpdesk@mtas.org.uk
How do I find out my MTAS reference number and how do I know that I’ve booked an interview?
Denis – please can you formulate a response to this.
Complaints
Jenny – please enter the line on how/where/when applicants can complain and/or appeal.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home