AIM: To explore the views of second-year Foundation Programme doctors (F2s) and their educational supervisors taking part in a deanery-wide pilot Foundation Programme, in order to gain an understanding of their perceptions of the available learning experiences, support and supervision. METHODS: 20 semi-structured interviews were undertaken with randomly selected F2 doctors and educational supervisors participating in the deanery-wide pilot Foundation Programme. RESULTS: F2 trainees received appropriate and sufficient support and supervision from a variety of sources during their placements; however, it was believed that additional training of educational supervisors was required. Trainees reported some problems with the perception of the role of an F2; further understanding of the purpose and role of the F2 programme is required at trust level. The portfolio was viewed positively as a record and a learning tool, but was thought to be too bureaucratic. Trainees believed that it was more beneficial to their careers to take part in a foundation programme as opposed to a traditional senior house officer post, but both trainees and educational supervisors expressed some concerns about the generic nature of some skills F2s were expected to acquire. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation has highlighted successful aspects of the Foundation Programme, particularly with regard to the level of support and range of experiences provided for trainees. Issues of concern to both trainees and educational supervisors have been identified, which require additional understanding.
AIM: To explore the views of second-year Foundation Programme doctors (F2s) and their educational supervisors taking part in a deanery-wide pilot Foundation Programme, in order to gain an understanding of their perceptions of the available learning experiences, support and supervision. METHODS: 20 semi-structured interviews were undertaken with randomly selected F2 doctors and educational supervisors participating in the deanery-wide pilot Foundation Programme. RESULTS: F2 trainees received appropriate and sufficient support and supervision from a variety of sources during their placements; however, it was believed that additional training of educational supervisors was required. Trainees reported some problems with the perception of the role of an F2; further understanding of the purpose and role of the F2 programme is required at trust level. The portfolio was viewed positively as a record and a learning tool, but was thought to be too bureaucratic. Trainees believed that it was more beneficial to their careers to take part in a foundation programme as opposed to a traditional senior house officer post, but both trainees and educational supervisors expressed some concerns about the generic nature of some skills F2s were expected to acquire. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation has highlighted successful aspects of the Foundation Programme, particularly with regard to the level of support and range of experiences provided for trainees. Issues of concern to both trainees and educational supervisors have been identified, which require additional understanding.
Authors: Jonathan Beard; Alasdair Strachan; Helena Davies; Fiona Patterson; Patsy Stark; Steve Ball; Peter Taylor; Sarah Thomas Journal: Med Educ Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 6.251