The professional futures of thousands of junior doctors throughout England could hinge on the result of a judicial review of the government's web based medical training application service, known as MTAS.
The MTAS website has been closed since April, and was last week abandoned by health secretary Patricia Hewitt. Its flawed software failed to select the best applicants for jobs and permitted serious security breaches. In some cases doctors were able to read each other's personal data and applications.
Although the decision to abandon MTAS was widely welcomed, no agreement has been reached on what to do with the thousands of applications that have already led to interviews.
An MTAS review group appointed by the government, in which the BMA participated, hammered out a compromise solution in April, in which every junior doctor is guaranteed one interview for their preferred post, and an overhaul of the system is planned for next year.
But junior doctors' group Remedy UK disagreed with the review group's recommendation that job offers made after the first round of MTAS applications should stand. Remedy UK applied for judicial review of the review group's decisions, arguing that this year's application process was “so conspicuously unfair as to amount to an abuse of power.”
Since winning leave for judicial review, Remedy UK has dropped its call to reopen applications for posts for which interviews had already been held. Remedy UK spokesman Matthew Jameson Evans, a junior surgeon, said the advance of time, rather than a change of heart, had led them to reconsider. “The August deadline is now too close to start again from scratch with CV based applications,” he said. “But we are arguing that the posts awarded should be made temporary, just for this year, until a fairer applications system is in place.”
Thomas de la Mare, counsel for Remedy UK, last week told the High Court that Ms Hewitt's announcement of the abandonment of MTAS made the case for judicial review “yet more imperative.”
He told Mr Justice Goldsmith that there would be “no advantage whatsoever for affected doctors in reverting to a system of deanery appointments.” Changes made by the review group, which prevented applicants from reordering their preferences, had removed the “only remaining feature of MTAS with any merit,” he added.
Judicial review hearings can strike down government policies but typically do not impose alternative policies. Remedy UK hopes that if it is successful, this year's training appointments would be made for only one year, and the court would instruct the government to consult more widely in developing a new system for next year.
A decision is expected on Wednesday 23 May, and any job offers stemming from the first round of interviews will likely be withheld until then.
The BMA and its Junior Doctors Committee, while welcoming the abandonment of MTAS, argue that training posts should be awarded for the normal seven year period. The BMA appeared as an interested party in the judicial review, arguing against Remedy UK's call for temporary appointments.
A spokesman said that the BMA's role should not be taken as an endorsement of MTAS or of the Department of Health. But Remedy's application to the court, which criticised the government's consultation process, had questioned whether the BMA was truly representative of doctors, he said. The BMA felt obliged to contest that assertion, he added.
Mr Jameson Evans said that Remedy UK was disappointed to find the BMA in opposition. “We had actually hoped to have them as a witness on our side,” he said. “It would be a pity if they felt obliged to oppose us over a minor technical point.”