You are here: HomeMeetings2016Bowral Minutes
Q & A Session

Jen Lang (Uni of Newcastle ) asked whether RCSs & UDRHs had to apply for all 3 components of the RHMT & ITRP or if we understand all of what we can do in our own area, can we apply for one component.’

David’s response
  • Department will ask for applications for a ‘fund holding role’
  • RCS’s and UDRH’s will play a role in assisting local partners as they bid for resources under that fund.
  • Most likely to be local hospital networks and possibly organisations like regional training and primary health networks
  • Must be attached to those health care settings in that region.
  • Don’t envisage that universities would play a ‘fund holding’ role in that space
  • Bring stakeholders together and the idea of the RTH is that RCSs & UDRH’s will certainly be one of a group that help develop the application

Mark Yeates (from Ballarat RCS)

‘I see a fairly major hole in the pathway which is the PGY2. Do you see any particular roles going forward for the PGY2? Most of the Colleges don’t start until PGY3.’

David’s response:

  • Still some gaps in the pre vocation training space
  • Targeted investment in one part
  • Have some investments in private sector training beyond just PGY1
  • How this links in with the jurisdictional and junior doctor employment system
  • The Comonwealth can’t by itself create a rural training pathway but what it can do is contribute, invest and try and provide leadership in that space

David Campbell (Monash University)

‘Specifically with the STP – will there be an expectation from the funding that flows through the Colleges to the Health service that there will be a clinical academic role for those specialist trainees? Sometimes discussions with Health services, when looking for clinical academics to supervise students, has been problematic. Will there be a component of the funding to support clinical academic work?’

David’s response:

  • Suggestions have been made to look at funding specific posts for clinical academics and the department will look at that
  • Department is investing in more regionally based clinical academics through the regional hubs and through what we are already doing in the STP
  • As we look at new STP agreements, department will be saying to Colleges that part of their job is engagement at the local and regional level with people who are already there on the ground
  • Funding model is more based around contributing to salary costs and contributing to costs of supervision and looking at rural loadings for trainee support
  • Must be careful to keep the program cost effective

Deb Wilson - (University of Tasmania)

‘Couple of questions relating to the STP funding, - we are very keen to engage with the colleges and keen to get those posts out into the rural areas, but we sometimes find that the Colleges are not so keen to engage with us. It would be quite helpful if the department could let us know exactly where these 50 places have been allocated and which colleges are going to get them and where they are going to be located, so that then we can engage for those positions for 2017 and work in a more strategic way when we have our rural training hubs up and running.’

David’s response:

  • More visibility of where the rural standard STP positions are
  • Information systems are very important and need to be better developed
  • Happy to share once the decisions are made

Emily McLeod – AMSA

‘AMSA’s concern is about the length of the program and whether students will be supported for the entire specialist training program or for only 6-12 months.’

David’s response:

  • Support is for the entire specialist training program
  • Designed to have standard STP posts and then the integrated rural pathway posts
  • Open up the students support to enable students to have better support if they need to undertake specialist training in the city although based rurally
  • Rotations out are still important but will be linked in with the first of these rural posts