Latest news in the Framework review

Current Status
Scoping & evaluation Formal consultation on scope Detailed review, development & consultation period
Phase 1 Phase 2

The AMC is setting the scope through environmental scanning, creating an evidence and testing ideas. It is developing the scope towards formal consultation with stakeholders.   Further information about the review process can be found here.


How does this relate to the COAG Review of Medical Intern Training?
In 2018, Health Ministers’ released their response to the 2015 COAG Review of Medical Intern Training. The AMC will consider the findings of that review, and take account of recommendations endorsed by Health Ministers. New South Wales, is the jurisdiction leading national implementation of key recommendations, including the plans for a two-year Capability and Performance Framework. The AMC supports this development, and AMC work will be informed by these plans.


Preliminary findings 

Preliminary findings highlight improvements to the consistency and quality of the intern year since the implementation of the Framework. However, consistent with the findings of the 2015 COAG Review of Medical Intern Training, variation remains in the quality of learning and assessment.

Themes Key issues framing the review
  • Ministers’ 2018 response to the 2015 COAG Review of Medical Internship Recommendations.
  • Overall quality and consistency improved at a national level.
  • Internship is not a program, there is limited longitudinal oversight of intern experience and development.
  • Articulate important areas, however there is a disconnect between outcomes and term and role expectations
  • Are not routinely monitored or tracked across the year
  • Concerns about identifying and assessing Domain 3: population health, Indigenous health and quality assurance
  • Assessment highly variable in quality, issues include:
    • Supervisor contact with interns limited.
    • Minimal feedback, superficial in nature and not multi-source.
  • Supervisor engagement and training/ calibration challenging.Form improved, however design and descriptor rating scales need further consideration
  • Concerns about the use of forms (registration, employment and development)
Programs and term
  • Mandatory terms. Overall agreement on need for general experience, however variable and limited clinical experience (not achieving intended aims).
  • Structure is not reflective of community health needs or healthcare models
  • Positive impact of changes to strengthen patient safety and junior doctor wellbeing
Accreditation (AMC accreditation of PMCs)
  • Drives internal reflection and review, robust and challenging
  • Strengthened role and independence of accreditation authorities and provides external reassurance
  • Variation in interpretation and application of national guidelines.

Review communiques, including formal consultation documents will be provided here.

How can I engage in the review? 

Further information about engaging in the review process can be found here.