You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Medical education and training
Research
What shape do UK trainees want their training to be? Results of a cross-sectional study
  1. Rhiannon L Harries1,
  2. Mustafa Rashid2,
  3. Peter Smitham2,
  4. Alex Vesey3,
  5. Richard McGregor4,
  6. Karl Scheeres5,
  7. Jon Bailey6,
  8. Syed Mohammed Afzal Sohaib7,
  9. Matthew Prior8,
  10. Jonathan Frost8,
  11. Walid Al-Deeb9,
  12. Gana Kugathasan9,
  13. Vimal J Gokani1
  1. 1Association of Surgeons in Training Council, Association of Surgeons in Training, London, UK
  2. 2British Orthopaedic Trainees Association, British Orthopaedic Association Offices, London, UK
  3. 3Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in Glasgow Trainees’ Committee, Glasgow, UK
  4. 4Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh Training Committee, Edinburgh, UK
  5. 5Psychiatric Trainees’ Committee, Royal College of Psychiatrists, London, UK
  6. 6Emergency Medicine Training Association, Royal College of Emergency Medicine, London, UK
  7. 7British Junior Cardiologists Association, British Cardiovascular Society, London, UK
  8. 8Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Trainees’ Committee, London, UK
  9. 9The Society of Radiologists in Training, Wrexham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Rhiannon L Harries; president{at}asit.org

Abstract

Objectives The British Government is acting on recommendations to overhaul postgraduate training to meet the needs of the changing population, to produce generalist doctors undergoing shorter broad-based training (Greenaway Review). Only 45 doctors in training were involved in the consultation process. This study aims to obtain a focused perspective on the proposed reforms by doctors in training from across specialities.

Design Prospective, questionnaire-based cross-sectional study.

Setting/participants Following validation, a 31-item electronic questionnaire was distributed via trainee organisations and Postgraduate Local Education and Training Board (LETB) mailing lists. Throughout the 10-week study period, the survey was publicised on several social media platforms.

Results Of the 3603 demographically representative respondents, 69% knew about proposed changes. Of the respondents, 73% expressed a desire to specialise, with 54% keen to provide general emergency cover. A small proportion (12%) stated that current training pathway length is too long, although 86% felt that it is impossible to achieve independent practitioner-level proficiency in a shorter period of time than is currently required. Opinions regarding credentialing were mixed, but tended towards disagreement. The vast majority (97%) felt credentialing should not be funded by doctors in training. Respondents preferred longer placement lengths with increasing career progression. Doctors in training value early generalised training (65%), with suggestions for further improvement.

Conclusions This is the first large-scale cross-specialty study regarding the Shape of Training Review. Although there are recommendations which trainees support, it is clear that one size does not fit all. Most trainees are keen to provide a specialist service on an emergency generalist background. Credentialing is a contentious issue; however, we believe removing aspects from curricula into post-Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT) credentialing programmes with shortened specialty training routes only degrades the current consultant expertise, and does not serve the population. Educational needs, not political winds, should drive changes in postgraduate medical education and all stakeholders should be involved.

  • MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING
  • shape of training
  • Greenaway review
  • Credentialing
  • postgraduate training

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi-org.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010461

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter Follow Rhiannon Harries at @rhiharries, Jon Bailey at @DrJonBailey and Vimal Gokani at @VimalGokani

    • Contributors RLH and VJG conceived and designed the study. All authors designed the questionnaire. RLH collected the data. RLH and VJG analysed the data. All authors were responsible for compiling the manuscript and approving the final article.

    • Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests The authors are current specialist trainees and elected members of their respective trainee organisation.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement Respondent-level data are available from the corresponding author at president@asit.org. The presented data are anonymised and risk of identification is low.