Foundation doctors' experience of their training: a questionnaire study.

JRSM short reports Pub Date : 2013-01-01 Epub Date: 2013-01-14 DOI:10.1258/shorts.2012.012095
Benjamin J F Dean, Philip Michael Duggleby
{"title":"Foundation doctors' experience of their training: a questionnaire study.","authors":"Benjamin J F Dean, Philip Michael Duggleby","doi":"10.1258/shorts.2012.012095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We set out to evaluate the impact of Foundation Year (FY) training on the doctors who had been through this training system.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Doctors in training were surveyed using a structured web-based questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Postgraduate training in the UK has been the subject of much upheaval in recent years.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 1065 doctors in training were surveyed in late 2011 and early 2012, of which 638 were current FY doctors.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The survey was both quantitative and qualitative, focusing on selection, working hours, training quality, training assessments and the regulation of training.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A MAJORITY OF CURRENT FY TRAINEES WORKED EXTRA WEEKLY HOURS WITH THE BREAKDOWN BEING: 5-10 hrs (54%), 10-15 hrs (17%), >15 hrs (9%) and no extra weekly hours (20%). All current FY trainees wanted to work for more than 40 h a week with the following breakdown of desired hours: per week 40-48 (22%), 48-60 (50%) and 60-70 h (19%). The average hours per week spent clerking emergency admissions by current FY trainees were as follows: zero hours (11%), 0-5 h (37%), 5-10 h (30%), 10-15 h (11%) and greater (11%). A large majority (90%) felt that it was possible for incompetent trainees to obtain satisfactory results from assessments and that the FY training program was poor at identifying failing trainees. There were high levels of dissatisfaction with the selection process.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>FY training appears to be failing in several key areas with the lack of emergency exposure a particular area of concern. It is essential that any future reforms of training address these problem areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":89182,"journal":{"name":"JRSM short reports","volume":"4 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/41/a6/SHORTS-12-095.PMC3572662.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JRSM short reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1258/shorts.2012.012095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/1/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: We set out to evaluate the impact of Foundation Year (FY) training on the doctors who had been through this training system.

Design: Doctors in training were surveyed using a structured web-based questionnaire.

Setting: Postgraduate training in the UK has been the subject of much upheaval in recent years.

Participants: A total of 1065 doctors in training were surveyed in late 2011 and early 2012, of which 638 were current FY doctors.

Main outcome measures: The survey was both quantitative and qualitative, focusing on selection, working hours, training quality, training assessments and the regulation of training.

Results: A MAJORITY OF CURRENT FY TRAINEES WORKED EXTRA WEEKLY HOURS WITH THE BREAKDOWN BEING: 5-10 hrs (54%), 10-15 hrs (17%), >15 hrs (9%) and no extra weekly hours (20%). All current FY trainees wanted to work for more than 40 h a week with the following breakdown of desired hours: per week 40-48 (22%), 48-60 (50%) and 60-70 h (19%). The average hours per week spent clerking emergency admissions by current FY trainees were as follows: zero hours (11%), 0-5 h (37%), 5-10 h (30%), 10-15 h (11%) and greater (11%). A large majority (90%) felt that it was possible for incompetent trainees to obtain satisfactory results from assessments and that the FY training program was poor at identifying failing trainees. There were high levels of dissatisfaction with the selection process.

Conclusions: FY training appears to be failing in several key areas with the lack of emergency exposure a particular area of concern. It is essential that any future reforms of training address these problem areas.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预科医生的培训经历:一项问卷调查研究。
目的我们旨在评估基础年(FY)培训对接受过该培训的医生的影响:设计:使用结构化网络问卷对受训医生进行调查:背景:近年来,英国的研究生培训一直备受争议:2011年底至2012年初,共调查了1065名正在接受培训的医生,其中638人为现任FY医生:调查既有定量也有定性,重点关注选拔、工作时间、培训质量、培训评估和培训监管:大多数现任第一年级培训学员每周都有额外的工作时间,细分为:5-10 小时(54%)、10-15 小时(17%)、大于 15 小时(9%)和每周无额外工作时间(20%)。所有 FY 受训人员都希望每周工作 40 小时以上,希望工作时间的细分如下:每周 40-48 小时(22%)、48-60 小时(50%)和 60-70 小时(19%)。本学年受训人员每周用于急诊入院文员工作的平均小时数如下:零小时(11%)、0-5 小时(37%)、5-10 小时(30%)、10-15 小时(11%)和更长时间(11%)。绝大多数人(90%)认为,不称职的学员有可能在评估中获得令人满意的结果,而 FY 培训计划在识别不合格学员方面做得很差。对选拔过程的不满意度很高:FY 培训似乎在几个关键领域都存在问题,其中缺乏应急接触尤其令人担忧。未来的培训改革必须解决这些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Knowledge, skills and attitude of evidence-based medicine among obstetrics and gynaecology trainees: a questionnaire survey. Severe inflammatory response and vasculitis leading to quadruple limb amputations. A rare case of submandibular abscess complicated by stroke. Are the pituitary gonadotrophins determinants of complete molar pregnancy? An investigation using the method of least squares. Lumbar puncture, chronic fatigue syndrome and idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a cross-sectional study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1