{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014174344436569808, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007087172218284904, 'mean_word_length': 5.629107981220657, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Conference on 14 July 1975 on the educational implications of The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Regulation of the Medical Profession *

Professor Walton opened the Conference by referring to deficiencies considered to exist in the education and training of doctors in Britain. The Merrison Report gave prominence to some of these deficiencies, particularly the unsatisfactory features of the pre-registration year following graduation from medical school, and the failure in the years since 1968 to develop the Royal Commission’s concept of general professional training. The Merrison solution -the introduction of a graduate clinical training phase for all medical graduates-would call upon the Royal Colleges to review their requirements and the Joint Higher Training Committees their training programmes. Clear roles in postgraduate training were also prescribed for the Councils for Postgraduate Medical Education and for the General Medical Council. The questions now arose, could these educational bodies meet the demands that would be made of them? could the medical schools (in addition to their undergraduate task) contribute to the development of well-coordinated training programmes? could the National Health Service both meet medical service requirements and also respond to the training needs of doctors? would the universities’ influence upon postgraduate medical education decline?