There is a big debate going in neurological circles whether or not MSology should become a separate sub-speciality with a formal accreditation process. Sub-specialisation with accreditation is happening across most disciplines in medicine. Why is this important? At the most recent European Charcot Meeting I attended there was a big debate around quality standards and who should be responsible of looking after pwMS. A large number of European neurologists favour the sub-specialist route, i.e. a formal European diploma, or accreditation system, to become an MSologist. I don’t agree. I think general neurologists can get up to speed with looking after pwMS if they work as part of a multidisciplinary team and keep themselves skilled. The days of a lone neurologist managing MS without a specialist nurse, pharmacist, etc. are long gone. The skills you need to have to manage MS are not rocket-science and sit comfortably with being a general neurologist.
It took me 16+ years to train to become a neurologist; I entered medical school in January 1982 and got my first ‘substantive post’ as a honorary consultant neurologist in November 1998. To add another year, or two, onto that to become a super-specialist just seems too long.
Do you agree with me that MSologists can be general neurologists with an interest in MS? Or do you think MSologists should be sub-specialists who spend most of their time looking after patients with MS?
An approach we are taking in the UK is to help skill-up trainees and non-specialists to manage MS. I have recently starting chairing the Multiple Sclerosis Academy with this specific aim. If you are interested in joining the Academy and attending the MasterClasses please register your interest via this LINK. Feedback from our first MasterClass was excellent.
CoI: multiple and the Neurology Academy is supported by an unrestricted grant from Biogen