S G Dubey1, C Roberts, A O Adebajo, M L Snaith. 1. Academic Unit of Medical Education, Coleridge House, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK. s.dubey@shef.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rheumatology training has undergone significant changes in the last decade with Calmanization, implementation of the New Deal for junior doctors and newer educational strategies for improving musculoskeletal training, like a core curriculum. However, concerns have been expressed about the quality of postgraduate training programmes in the UK. OBJECTIVES: First, to assess current trainees' perceptions of the quality of core and subspecialty training, the impact of workload on training, and to explore demographic variations in training experience. Secondly, to identify educational strategies that trainees felt would enhance their training. METHODS: The questionnaire was initially distributed to all specialist registrars attending the BSR Annual Meeting in Brighton in April 2002. Subsequently, the questionnaire was posted to all registrars on the Joint Committee for Higher Medical Training list with a reminder after 4 weeks. RESULTS: Trainees rated positively training in routine patient care, musculoskeletal examination and injection skills while training in primary care rheumatology, epidemiology, paediatric rheumatology and sports medicine was rated negatively. There is agreement that the reduction in junior doctors' hours has adversely affected training, and issues relating to workload have overtaken training issues. Trainees undertaking dual accreditation are more likely to feel this. Educational strategies deemed to enhance training included training workshops focused on specific topics, such as musculoskeletal radiology (89.2%), and an adequate debriefing session after an out-patient clinic (81.6%). An independently administered, reliable and valid scale for quality of training could be used to assess regional variations in training and monitoring quality. CONCLUSIONS: The changes to junior doctors' hours, the working patterns of doctors and service commitments have all affected the quality and time available for certain aspects of rheumatological training. A major effort to enhance quality is necessary to ensure that the objectives of training are met within the intended training budget.
BACKGROUND:Rheumatology training has undergone significant changes in the last decade with Calmanization, implementation of the New Deal for junior doctors and newer educational strategies for improving musculoskeletal training, like a core curriculum. However, concerns have been expressed about the quality of postgraduate training programmes in the UK. OBJECTIVES: First, to assess current trainees' perceptions of the quality of core and subspecialty training, the impact of workload on training, and to explore demographic variations in training experience. Secondly, to identify educational strategies that trainees felt would enhance their training. METHODS: The questionnaire was initially distributed to all specialist registrars attending the BSR Annual Meeting in Brighton in April 2002. Subsequently, the questionnaire was posted to all registrars on the Joint Committee for Higher Medical Training list with a reminder after 4 weeks. RESULTS: Trainees rated positively training in routine patient care, musculoskeletal examination and injection skills while training in primary care rheumatology, epidemiology, paediatric rheumatology and sports medicine was rated negatively. There is agreement that the reduction in junior doctors' hours has adversely affected training, and issues relating to workload have overtaken training issues. Trainees undertaking dual accreditation are more likely to feel this. Educational strategies deemed to enhance training included training workshops focused on specific topics, such as musculoskeletal radiology (89.2%), and an adequate debriefing session after an out-patient clinic (81.6%). An independently administered, reliable and valid scale for quality of training could be used to assess regional variations in training and monitoring quality. CONCLUSIONS: The changes to junior doctors' hours, the working patterns of doctors and service commitments have all affected the quality and time available for certain aspects of rheumatological training. A major effort to enhance quality is necessary to ensure that the objectives of training are met within the intended training budget.
Authors: Helen E Foster; Mark J Harrison; Clare E Pain; Deborah P M Symmons; Eileen M Baildam Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 2.980