OBJECTIVE: To find the view of family and community medicine (FCM) residents on the kinds of relationship between tutors and residents and their training. DESIGN: The methodology employed was qualitative; and the technique chosen, that of focus groups. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: FCM residents belonging to the teaching units in Murcia and Cartagena. INTERVENTION: Five groups were organised, two second-year resident groups, two third-year ones, and one first-year one. At the start of each group the objectives and norms of the meeting were explained. Residents were then asked four questions about their relationship with their tutor and the training received during their residency. The information arising was classified as a function of the time of debate, the number of residents expressing the same view and the intensity of their emotional involvement on expressing their views. RESULTS: The tutor's confidence in the resident's work was what residents valued most highly, along with the exchange of views as equals. The participants stated that they wanted to take part in planning their training and that they needed to participate in the clinical and organisational decisions taken in the tutor's clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Trust between tutor and resident is essential. Communication between the two must be on an equal basis. Training procedures are valued higher than training content. Residents want to intervene in planning their training. Tutors are models for training.
OBJECTIVE: To find the view of family and community medicine (FCM) residents on the kinds of relationship between tutors and residents and their training. DESIGN: The methodology employed was qualitative; and the technique chosen, that of focus groups. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: FCM residents belonging to the teaching units in Murcia and Cartagena. INTERVENTION: Five groups were organised, two second-year resident groups, two third-year ones, and one first-year one. At the start of each group the objectives and norms of the meeting were explained. Residents were then asked four questions about their relationship with their tutor and the training received during their residency. The information arising was classified as a function of the time of debate, the number of residents expressing the same view and the intensity of their emotional involvement on expressing their views. RESULTS: The tutor's confidence in the resident's work was what residents valued most highly, along with the exchange of views as equals. The participants stated that they wanted to take part in planning their training and that they needed to participate in the clinical and organisational decisions taken in the tutor's clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Trust between tutor and resident is essential. Communication between the two must be on an equal basis. Training procedures are valued higher than training content. Residents want to intervene in planning their training. Tutors are models for training.