Tomorrow's doctors-the next decade

The next version of Tomorrow's Doctors is shortly coming your way

Medical students have always criticised their courses-usually with good cause. In 1993 the General Medical Council's education committee, which has responsibility in law for promoting high standards of medical education,1 responded to concerns by advocating a radical change in medical school curriculums.2 Since then, every medical school in the United Kingdon has been visited twice to monitor progress towards compliance with the GMC's recommendations.

In many universities the new curriculums are only now being fully implemented. Whatever you may think of your course, it will have changed a good deal over the past few years - and is probably still changing. Many students and staff would prefer a period of stability in which to evaluate some of the recent developments. So why revise the recommendations now? The events of the past decade cannot be ignored. Public and profession alike are now much more aware of the dangers as well as the benefits of modern medicine - and of the misdemeanours of some doctors. The rapidly increasing numbers of medical students, four new medical schools in England, and a variety of innovative curriculums for school leavers and for graduates will inevitably challenge established practice. A modern health service depends on professional colleagues working in teams. Many universities are now devising methods to ensure that the necessary skills are acquired by doctors, nurses, and other future healthcare professionals during the undergraduate years, without sacrificing each profession's values. The widespread use of problem based learning has shown clearly that there are acceptable alternatives to the systems based approach advocated previously. For all these reasons there is a need to look again at the guidance given to UK universities.

The new recommendations are intended to augment and update, but not replace, Tomorrow's Doctors. So what's new? While the content builds on the principles set out previously, the style will be different. The format will be like that of other GMC Publications - for example, Good Medical Practice³ and The New Doctor⁴. It will be divided into three parts:

Part 1-based on the standards in Good Medical Practice - will identify generic aims and learning objectives.

Part 2 will describe how the medical schools should set about structuring, designing, and delivering undergraduate medical curriculums. A national curriculum is not being proposed.

Part 3 will consider assessment during the undergraduate course and how readiness for practice as a preregistration house officer can be judged.

So now you know. What really matters, however, is that you read the new version. It will be issued in draft form in June or July - and will be available on the GMC website (www.gmc­uk.org). Please let me know the views of your school on what is good and what needs to be changed. Finally, it would be helpful if you can think of a suitable title. Please send your suggestions to the studentBMJ by the end of August. The person who suggests the title that is eventually used will receive a £50 book voucher. The current front runner, Tomorrow's Doctors: The Next Decade, should not be hard to beat.

Graeme Catto, chairman, education committee, GMC, London


studentBMJ 2001;09:217-260 July ISSN 0966-6494

1. The Medical Act. London: Stationery Office,1983.
2. General Medical Council. Tomorrow's doctors. London: GMC,1993.
3. General Medical Council. Good medical practice. London: GMC,1998.
4. General Medical Council. The new doctor. London: GMC,1997.