L T O Bell1, O Dick2, N Ali3, D Little4. 1. Health Education England - South West, Park House, 1200 Parkway, Bristol, BS34 8YU, UK. Electronic address: LTOBell@doctors.org.uk. 2. Health Education England - East Midlands, Westbridge Place, 1 Westbridge Close, Leicester LE3 5DR, UK. 3. Health Education England - South West, Park House, 1200 Parkway, Bristol, BS34 8YU, UK. 4. Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath, Avon, BA1 3NG, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To assess foundation doctors' experiences of undergraduate radiology teaching within the UK and preferences for radiology teaching delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre study of foundation doctors. A questionnaire, designed using the Royal College of Radiologists Undergraduate Radiology Curriculum, was completed to determine how prepared foundation doctors felt in image interpretation by their undergraduate teaching. For this, agreement with statements was graded using a five-point Likert scale. Open and closed questions were used to assess preferences for teaching delivery. RESULTS: The study involved 150 foundation doctors from 29 medical schools. The majority "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that undergraduate training gave them confidence in interpreting most basic chest and abdominal radiographs. Confidence was less for skeletal radiographs and trauma computed tomography (CT). Seventy-seven percent wished they had had more radiology teaching. The three most important topics to be included in teaching were chest radiograph, CT, and abdominal radiograph interpretation. Small group teaching and integration into clinical teaching received the highest number of votes for preferred teaching delivery method. Ninety-two percent felt radiologists were best suited to deliver teaching. CONCLUSION: In general, foundation doctors felt undergraduate teaching prepared them well for chest and abdominal radiograph interpretation, but less so for skeletal radiography and CT. The majority felt more undergraduate radiology teaching would be beneficial, and that this should be delivered by radiologists in either small group sessions or integrated into clinical teaching.
AIM: To assess foundation doctors' experiences of undergraduate radiology teaching within the UK and preferences for radiology teaching delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre study of foundation doctors. A questionnaire, designed using the Royal College of Radiologists Undergraduate Radiology Curriculum, was completed to determine how prepared foundation doctors felt in image interpretation by their undergraduate teaching. For this, agreement with statements was graded using a five-point Likert scale. Open and closed questions were used to assess preferences for teaching delivery. RESULTS: The study involved 150 foundation doctors from 29 medical schools. The majority "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that undergraduate training gave them confidence in interpreting most basic chest and abdominal radiographs. Confidence was less for skeletal radiographs and trauma computed tomography (CT). Seventy-seven percent wished they had had more radiology teaching. The three most important topics to be included in teaching were chest radiograph, CT, and abdominal radiograph interpretation. Small group teaching and integration into clinical teaching received the highest number of votes for preferred teaching delivery method. Ninety-two percent felt radiologists were best suited to deliver teaching. CONCLUSION: In general, foundation doctors felt undergraduate teaching prepared them well for chest and abdominal radiograph interpretation, but less so for skeletal radiography and CT. The majority felt more undergraduate radiology teaching would be beneficial, and that this should be delivered by radiologists in either small group sessions or integrated into clinical teaching.