Doctors - advice please - has anyone retrained as a doctor mid-career?

[Participant]

Hi all

I recently sustained a broken leg and was in hospital for two weeks. It was the first time I've been an in-patient at a hospital since I was about 9, and one thing that really struck me (apart from the abject misery of being an in-patient on an NHS ward!) was how interested I turned out to be in medicine.

I wanted to know everything about everything and was discussing things in technical detail with the consultants looking after me, and not just about my own case. It struck me that I could easily be passionate about medicine.

I'm an accountant at a FTSE20 on a decent wage. I'm 36 with a wife, two kids (5+2), and a mortgage, so have serious responsibilities. However, I am not passionate about my line of work, so I've been semi-seriously considering a pretty drastic career shift to medicine. I don't have chemistry or biology A-levels, but I do have maths and physics. My degree was management sciences.

My questions are, assuming funding the earnings gap is not an issue:

- Has anyone here re-trained as a doctor mid-career and what tips would you offer?
- Am I foolish for even contemplating this - is it just too hard a path for someone like me?
- What would be my route to achieving this - start with part time biology and chemistry A-levels then quit work for five years to do a full time degree in medicine? Presumably a part time medicine degree is absolutely impossible as you need to be in hospitals all the time...!?
- Are 'late starters' perceived less favourably in terms of progression opportunities; realistically I'd be in my early-mid forties until I even qualified.
- Will I ever see my family if I do this?!

I'm under no illusions that this would cost me a fortune in time and earnings until I was out the other side, and it's a massive gamble as it might not work out, but the more I think about it, especially since my accident, the more I'm realising you only get one life and you need to do what fulfils you in that time.

Sort of wishing I'd had this epiphany when I was 9!

Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

1. Entry requirements are brutal. Have you got the A-levels to take the entry test?
2. They take on a year ahead, so this year they'll be accepting students for 2018
3. Do you have a degree?*
4. Are you willing to relocate to train/go Uni?
5. Massive cost to qualify. Are you going to be in a position to fund this?
6. Long hours and high stress
7. Money isn't amazing until you're SpR/registrar level

*you're looking at 6 years from start to end of foundation stage if you start with a degree (4 year uni vs. the normal 5) and however long to get up the ranks as a registrar. Possibly 10-12 years to Consultant, if you put everything in to it and pass the exams first time.

I just came out of the NHS (not a medic), but have worked closely with them. I also had the same idea of re-training after spending time working alongside them but after seeing the hours, conditions and work life balance the students and junior SHOs (senior house officers) have, it killed my enthusiasm. I'm talking on-ward bedrooms with nothing more than a bed in a room which wouldn't pass for 2 star hotel standards. For 16hr shifts.

In my role I got to work on any ward and experience everything from midwifery, mental health, special care baby unit (neonatal), paediatrics, A&E and COTE (care of the elderly). At some stage you'd have to pick a specialism and even I wouldn't know where I'd choose given the experience. Like I said, I wasn't medical but I've seen partners of mothers to be get physical and verbally abusive to the point they've had to be removed, MH patients attempt suicide and make death threats to staff, at least 3 neonatal babies die infront of me, watched children screaming in agony on paeds wards, drunk/violent people with stab wounds in A&E, patients with dementia physically and sexually assaulting staff. The reality is, there is no nice "16-30" ward where you rock up and treat people who can control their bladder. There are no easy options and I respect them for that.

My school colleague is about to become a consultant (32 years old) and he said that there were mature students in his class, as old as 40, when he went in (straight from uni), so it's possible. My friend is also the typical genius who got 99% on his Maths A-level, so may not be representative of the time taken to get to that level. It depends if you pass the exam at each stage of your career ultimately.

Don't let it deter you, if it's what you want but with an established family and a mortgage you may find that you pass the entry requirement exam then get offered a placement at a Uni in Edinburgh or Swansea. Then what?

There's a good e-book on passing the GAMSAT exam (assuming you have a degree). Pay for that, have a read and it'll give you a better insight in to the recruitment process.

 

[Participant]

Thanks for the excellent reply. To answer your bullet questions:

1. Entry requirements are brutal. Have you got the A-levels to take the entry test? - Not sure, I've got 4 A-levels, 2As in Maths and Physics and Bs in Economics and English
2. They take on a year ahead, so this year they'll be accepting students for 2018 - OK
3. Do you have a degree?* - Yep, 2:1 Hons in Mgmt Sciences
4. Are you willing to relocate to train/go Uni? - I'd consider it at the very least
5. Massive cost to qualify. Are you going to be in a position to fund this? - Should be OK for various reasons
6. Long hours and high stress - that's probably the bit I'm most concerned about - seeing less of my family
7. Money isn't amazing until you're SpR/registrar level- noted

*you're looking at 6 years from start to end of foundation stage if you start with a degree (4 year uni vs. the normal 5) and however long to get up the ranks as a registrar. Possibly 10-12 years to Consultant, if you put everything in to it and pass the exams first time.

10 - 12 years to consultant would have me at almost 50, but then I suppose I'd still have 15-20 more years of work ahead of me .

Great insight in the rest of your post. If I got offered a placement somewhere else I think I'd have already agreed that with my wife before I even start down this road.

Maybe it's too late. Will pick up that GAMSAT book anyway and have a read, cheers.

 

[Minstadave]

If you're going to go into hospital medicine you'll be regularly working nights for the first 10 years after qualifying. Not bad in your 20s, but in your 40s it is a grind. Plus you move cities every 6-12 months so if you're settled down it means a butt load of commuting.

I'm just coming up to consultant level and I'd not recommend it to my own child personally, I love my job, I work in one of the best staffed and rewarding areas of medicine but medicine has been changing even since I qualified 10 years ago and not for the better. We're very much generic shift workers now rather than professionals. It won't be long till we're clocking in and clocking out.

You're looking at £40k in tuition fees before considering living and travel expenses/lost earnings. Starting salary for an F1 is around 30k with nights, going upto 60k as an SpR.

I'd have thought we'll probably see the end of the NHS as we know it in the next decade too if the Tories continue their selling off of services. So you'd have the added difficulty of having no idea of what healthcare will look like when you actually hit the ground.

 

[#Chri5#]

10 - 12 years to consultant would have me at almost 50, but then I suppose I'd still have 15-20 more years of work ahead of me .

Isn't the general objective to retire early, not at 70? Then you are free to do whatever tickles your fancy, be it part-time work, not still be grinding away.

 

[HangTime]

Arguably 65-70 is fairly early relative to the rising life expectancy nowadays. It used to be, you retired at 65, bought yourself a new suit and pair of shoes and said "these will see me through". For vocational careers I can see why people might choose to continue working. My Uncle continued working as a consultant in some capacity into his 70s.

 

[itsallaboutyou]

Holy thread revival - but I'd like to add, I'm thinking of something similar.

My wife is a GP and is really supportive of my career change idea.

I did Civil Engineering and have been a police officer for just short of 9 years. Like the OP, I've got two little ones, nearly 3 and 7 months.

I was a bit lazy in school - one of the biggest regrets - but got decent GCSEs and a few decent A-Levels.

I'm looking at an access to medicine course - which is taught full time at a local college and - providing you pass the course, you're guaranteed a place on the MB/CHB degree course - which at the university local to me is 4 years.

I'm 32, have similar commitments - but I'm finding myself dreadfully unhappy in the role. Together with the drastic changes to our conditions - I don't think I fancy rolling around on the floor into my sixties. I have a decent length of service for my pension - about 14 years all in, but I can't shake this desire to try and make the change.

I don't underestimate the work involved - I suppose part of me is wondering if I'd have the constitution to have a go.

I'd be interested to hear any other thoughts of people who have considered this drastic a change in career - whether medicine, or otherwise.

Cheers,

Tom

 

[Minstadave]

Honestly? Right now I wouldn’t recommend medicine as a career. I’d certainly discourage my daughter from it if she was old enough.

At 32 you’ll be in Uni until 36-37 and your foundation years will take you to almost 40. If you choose a hospital based speciality you’ll be doing an acute rota well into your mid 40s. I’m coming to the very end of my years as an SpR at 33 and there’s not a chance in hell I’d want to do another 10 years of it.

 

[dowie]

@OP - St George's college in London offers a 4 year medical course for graduates - requires a min of a 2:1 plus GAMSAT

I'm looking at an access to medicine course - which is taught full time at a local college and - providing you pass the course, you're guaranteed a place on the MB/CHB degree course - which at the university local to me is 4 years.

that 'guarantee' sounds a bit dodgy - someone who ostensibly wouldn't otherwise be accepted gets to bypass the admissions process by undertaking an access course

 

[itsallaboutyou]

@OP - St George's college in London offers a 4 year medical course for graduates - requires a min of a 2:1 plus GAMSAT

that 'guarantee' sounds a bit dodgy - someone who ostensibly wouldn't otherwise be accepted gets to bypass the admissions process by undertaking an access course

I'll be honest - I was skeptical - given my background is Civil Engineering - but its the University of Liverpool - and it's administered through UCAS and their School of Medicine. They're called Year Zero now. Effectively up-skilling Biology and Chemistry to the required level, with some clinical input too. It's exactly the same admissions process - just a year earlier. Hope that cleared that up.

Honestly? Right now I wouldn’t recommend medicine as a career. I’d certainly discourage my daughter from it if she was old enough.

At 32 you’ll be in Uni until 36-37 and your foundation years will take you to almost 40. If you choose a hospital based speciality you’ll be doing an acute rota well into your mid 40s. I’m coming to the very end of my years as an SpR at 33 and there’s not a chance in hell I’d want to do another 10 years of it.

I can understand your point - and if I was in your position, I'd wholeheartedly agree - but as I'm potentially at the start of it, I'll reserve judgement! Also - I currently work a 10 week shift rota - consisting of the MOST antisocial hours you could conjure up - anything slightly better is a winner!

Thanks for the post guys.

 

[dowie]

I'll be honest - I was skeptical - given my background is Civil Engineering - but its the University of Liverpool - and it's administered through UCAS and their School of Medicine. They're called Year Zero now. Effectively up-skilling Biology and Chemistry to the required level, with some clinical input too. It's exactly the same admissions process - just a year earlier. Hope that cleared that up.

ah wait a minute you have to apply via UCAS for the access course? So basically it's a foundation year for people who got the grades but just didn't take Chemistry A-Level... that is a bit different to what people usually mean by an "access courses" which can be taken by basically anyone and then used in place of A-Levels as part of a uni application.

Unless the college and university have links, especially when it comes to the access course in question, so they're sure of the quality etc etc. But I'd double check they don't just mean a guaranteed interview or something like that.

Access courses can be respected - I got onto an AAA law course with one, back when A*s weren't around/people get into Oxbridge and the LSE with them/etc.

it is the guaranteed admission bit I was surprised at, but the above seems to indicate it is more like what other universities would call a foundation year... and so the admissions bit is more getting onto it in the first place

 

[Energize]

A lot of unis won't accept A levels that are older than 3 years and you'll have to do an access course to get up to the equivalent standard to be considered for entry.

 

[itsallaboutyou]

ah wait a minute you have to apply via UCAS for the access course? So basically it's a foundation year for people who got the grades but just didn't take Chemistry A-Level... that is a bit different to what people usually mean by an "access courses" which can be taken by basically anyone and then used in place of A-Levels as part of a uni application.



it is the guaranteed admission bit I was surprised at, but the above seems to indicate it is more like what other universities would call a foundation year... and so the admissions bit is more getting onto it in the first place

Yup - that’s pretty much it.

As for my A-Levels, they’re pretty irrelevant anyway.

I don’t doubt the task ahead - but I’m up for it and quite excited tbh.

 

[Minstadave]

I’d be careful about letting blind enthusiasm (noble as it is) take you down a long career path filled with uncertainty.

Have you got children? I’d be surprised if your current rota is worse than most acute medical rotas.

What do you dislike about your current job? If you’re a police officer then you’re likely to find many similar irritations working in the NHS, it’s a mess at the moment.

 

[Ross Thomson]

direct entry into an undergrad medical degree without biology isn't going to happen.

I considered doing it a few years ago before child number 3 was born rather than return to science research. The consideration didn't last very long. The idea of going back to uni for 5 years, having t deal with sick people and ultimately medical students and other doctors put me off it. I'm now going to retrain as a high school biology teacher for my sins.

dentistry offer post grad courses for those already with degrees.

 

[dowie]

direct entry into an undergrad medical degree without biology isn't going to happen.

that isn't true, Chemistry is generally compulsory but AFAIK Biology isn't... probs preferable to at least have AS biology though and ideally the full A level but to say it isn't going to happen is false

also the OP already has a degree so could look at post grad medicine courses


I do wonder, given the replies by Minstadave and the obvious time issue in addition to the stress etc.. of being on irregular shifts during your late 30s/early 40s instead of in your 20s like most medics whether the OP and the second poster who are interested in this should perhaps consider other medical careers that compliment/support the area they'd like to go into

I mean rather than giving up completely perhaps if they had considered training to be a doctor and becoming a radiologist they could train to become a radiographer instead and work alongside radiologists - shorter training, earlier specialisation and you can get it to circa 70k eventually on the NHS

likewise perhaps training to be a cardiac physiologist could be another option... you could end help run chest pain clinics or end up specialising and ending up working in a catheter lab where catheters are inserted and fed up blood vessels then controlled by electro magnets to carry out ablations in the heart and fix arrhythmias


I mean it shouldn't be an all or nothing thing, if you feel you want to be a doctor, unless you're just doing it for the perceived status/money (which is probably a very bad idea!) then the other complimentary professions ought to have some appeal too and are perhaps more feasible for a career change as the study time is shorter and they don't involve all the junior doctor stress that would likely be a nightmare if you've got kids and are no longer in your 20s.

 

[Ross Thomson]

that isn't true, Chemistry is generally compulsory but AFAIK Biology isn't... probs preferable to at least have AS biology though and ideally the full A level but to say it isn't going to happen is false

Wrong terminology used given I'm from Scotland. Glasgow's entry requirments

Higher grades must include Chemistry AND Biology AND either Mathematics or Physics


If Biology is not studied at A2 level, it must have been taken at AS-level and a grade A is required - not a clue what A2 level is

 

[dowie]

Wrong terminology used given I'm from Scotland. Glasgow's entry requirments

Higher grades must include Chemistry AND Biology AND either Mathematics or Physics


If Biology is not studied at A2 level, it must have been taken at AS-level and a grade A is required - not a clue what A2 level is

it isn't wrong terminology, it is the qualifications most of the potential applicants from the majority of the UK (aside form Scotland) will have - your previous statement didn't specify Scotland so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything

you said "direct entry into an undergrad medical degree without biology isn't going to happen."

that isn't really correct, for plenty of other medicals schools it is A-Level chemistry that is the compulsory one

if you meant to refer to only Glasgow then that is different but you didn't specify that, you made a more general statement

 

[Ross Thomson]

it isn't wrong terminology, it is the qualifications most of the potential applicants from the majority of the UK (aside form Scotland) will have - your previous statement didn't specify Scotland so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything

you said "direct entry into an undergrad medical degree without biology isn't going to happen."

that isn't really correct, for plenty of other medicals schools it is A-Level chemistry that is the compulsory one

if you meant to refer to only Glasgow then that is different but you didn't specify that, you made a more general statement

it is wrong as highers are not the same as A levels. Glasgow wouldn't accept anyone without a higher biology from a Scottish school. These qualifications won't be much different if any from the UK medical schools. Also if you do have biology you are more likely to be accepted than if you don't.


And at Glasgow you can only use your degree as part of an entry to medicine if you graduated in the last 7 years. This may be different at other medical schools

 

[dowie]

it is wrong as highers are not the same as A levels. Glasgow wouldn't accept anyone without a higher biology from a Scottish school. These qualifications won't be much different if any from the UK medical schools. Also if you do have biology you are more likely to be accepted than if you don't.


And at Glasgow you can only use your degree as part of an entry to medicine if you graduated in the last 7 years. This may be different at other medical schools

I'm not wrong here, again you didn't specify anything to do with Glasgow in the post I quoted...

here are the requirements for Leeds:

https://courses.leeds.ac.uk/25798/MBChB_Medicine_and_Surgery#section3

"A-level: AAA including chemistry"

here they are for Cambridge:

https://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/courses/medicine

"A Levels in Chemistry and one of Biology/Human Biology, Physics, Mathematics."


so the following isn't correct:

direct entry into an undergrad medical degree without biology isn't going to happen.

if instead you'd said "direct entry into an undergrad medical degree at Glasgow without biology isn't going to happen."

then that would be correct but you didn't, like I already pointed out to you you made a general statement... so replying a second time with reference to Glasgow is a bit futile

I don't mean to be pedantic but you are wrong here and I already explained why in my previous post... hopefully the above links make this a bit clearer - at neither of those medical schools does your statement apply "medical degree without biology isn't going to happen" - it clearly can happen at Leeds and Cambridge (and if I'd googled for more than two examples I'd have found quite a few others to contradict it too)