Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Possible models for future postgraduate specialty training in Genitourinary Medicine
  1. Rak Nandwani
  1. Correspondence to Rak Nandwani, NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Sandyford, 6 Sandyford Place, Glasgow G3 7NB; rak.nandwani{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

To quote John Lennon: ‘Life is just what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans’.1 While sexual health services in England have been dealing with the consequences of the Health and Social Care Act2 and commissioning,3 decisions are being made that will affect how postgraduate training is delivered throughout the UK. These have been driven primarily by the Shape of Training (SoT) review4 and the Future Hospital Commission,5 underpinned by the medical registrar role being perceived as less rewarding so fewer doctors now wish to take it on.6 However, the time has come for Genitourinary Medicine (GUM) to return its gaze to changes in acute care delivery to ensure the specialty influences how these are implemented, and in turn the impact they have on GUM.

The current career path for doctors who wish to become medical specialists is to spend 2 years in foundation training (FY1-2) after qualification, followed by a further 2 years in core medical training. The Membership of the Royal Colleges of Physicians (UK) diploma is …

View Full Text


  • Contributors RN conceived and wrote the article. RN is the chairperson of the Genitourinary Medicine Specialty Advisory Committee of the Joint Royal Colleges Postgraduate Training Board and a member of the Joint Specialty Committee in Genitourinary Medicine at the Royal College of Physicians, London

  • Disclaimer The views expressed are entirely his own and not necessarily representative of any other organisation or individual.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.