Sir, Mr McArdle's data are wrong, and so unfairly do great harm to the training and assessment process. It is also unacceptable to broadcast such disinformation about the trainees, who work so hard and show such dedication to fulfil the rigours of their long training programme.

As I have pointed out to him at RITAs in the past, OMFS SpRs are not obliged to present data on procedures once they get above a couple of hundred cases. So the current logbooks may not show certain categories, but closer inspection and inquiry would show the true extent.

On a general point, 'counting operations' is only one part of training; indications, ethics, communications, complications pre and post operative care etc, are of course equally important parts of training. Since, like most OMF units, all the consultants at the Queen Victoria Hospital personally undertake day case/local anaesthetic lists for minor oral surgery, there are always opportunities for trainees to gain more teaching in MOS.

Finally if he feels an individual is deficient in any aspect of his training, and this view is shared by the RITA panel, then his role is to offer targeted training to the individual. I understand he in fact approved all the trainees in question to continue (RITA C) training. Writing anecdotal, inaccurate letters seems less valuable to trainees.

In the hospital service we are used to close team working with surgeons who will form the bulk of the future oral surgery speciality. I do not think this type of letter is helpful, but I for one will continue working closely with my oral surgical colleagues as part of our team.