So if there's an oversupply throughout the country what is the basis for the article, and for the plans to try and recruit additional pathologists to Alberta in 2012?
I don't work in the US, so I can't compare it with Canada, but in my opinion there isn't any overall shortage of pathologists in urban regions of Canada. Certainly 10 years ago the market favoured the job seeker, but that wide open vista of vacancies has slowly but surely dried up. Has a lot to do with the market going downhill (pathologists choosing to die & slowly decompose in front of their scopes), the consolidation of a lot of the little tiny mom-and-pop joints into larger regional centers and the cranking out of more and more pathology residents.
So what's this "shortage" that the article refers to? I'd expect that they're referring to the fact that they have certain hard-to-recruit spots that have been empty since Osler quit. Think crappy pay, solitary practice, above the tree-line, your diener is a polar bear, etc. No one wants those jobs, and since there isn't an overabundance of pathologists in this country, no one is forced to take them.
The fact that AHS brings up shortages at all really reads as a non-sequitur for me; the inciting incident had nothing (so it seems to me) to do with workload or an inadequate number of pathologists. Rather, it was an example of licensing someone who
wasn't competent. Did AHS subvert the usual stringent licensing requirements to get this locum through the door, and is laying the groundwork for a "we didn't have any alternative, there aren't enough pathologists to go around" defense? Otherwise, the whole digression into shortages doesn't seem relevant.
Anyways, AHS is proposing to add positions (over the next two years, so at some point before 2015) to the budget
(but will this budget item be approved?) and I wonder if they're mentioning this as a distraction from the problem at hand. Or maybe that goofball reporter with her blizzard of puff pieces is the source of all this, and the AHS is only responding to her squeaking "shortage" at the top of her lungs to get her blog counter moving.
Nonetheless, if your politicians are anything like ours, you have seen them *gasp* go back on their word from time to time. So don't count your chickens (or update your CV) just yet. And if those those eight positions (in the quite desirable market of Calgary) actually materialize, there will be no shortage of Royal College'd Canadians to go all Thunderdome over them. That's not to discourage anyone from going job shopping up north, but take what you read in the local rags with a grain of salt: as a general rule, nothing is as good or as bad as it is presented to be.
Example:
In 2008, it was widely perceived that Canada was horribly short of physicians, to the point that there was an initiative to raise awareness undertaken by the Canadian Medical Association; this included widespread print and TV adds to inform Canadians that "Canada Needs More Doctors". More Doctors, More Care - anybody see those? Less than four years later, the prevailing wisdom is that we're heading into a
"doctor glut".
Which is it? Probably neither. Nothing is as good or as bad as it is presented to be - the truth is somewhere in the middle.