Search

Objective To investigate trainee doctors' and trainers' perceptions of the validity of the Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) using Messick's conceptualisation of construct validity. Design Qualitative semi-structured focus groups and interviews with trainees and trainers. Setting Postgraduate medical training in London, Kent Surrey and Sussex, Yorkshire and Humber, and Wales in November/December 2015. Part of a larger study about the fairness of postgraduate medical training. Participants Ninety-six trainees and 41 trainers, comprising UK and international medical graduates from Foundation, General Practice, Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Psychiatry, Radiology, and Surgery, at all levels of training. Main outcome measures Trainee and trainer perceptions of the validity of the ARCP as an assessment tool. Results Participants recognised the need for assessment, but were generally dissatisfied with ARCPs, especially UK graduate trainees. Participants criticised the perceived tick-box nature of ARCPs as measuring clerical rather than clinical ability, and which they found detrimental to learning. Trainees described being able to populate their e-portfolios with just positive feedback; they also experienced difficulty getting assessments signed off by supervisors. ARCPs were perceived as poor at identifying struggling trainees and/or as discouraging excellence by focussing on minimal competency. Positive experiences of ARCPs arose when trainees could discuss their progress with interested supervisors. Conclusions Trainee and trainer criticisms of ARCPs can be conceptualised as evidence that ARCPs lack validity as an assessment tool. Ongoing reforms to workplace-based assessments could address negative perceptions of the 'tick-box' elements, encourage constructive input from seniors and allow trainees to demonstrate excellence as well as minimal competency, while keeping patients safe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Defining quality in health presents many challenges. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) defined quality clinical care as care that is equitable, timely, safe, efficient, effective and patient centred. However, it is not clear how different stakeholders within a child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) understand and/or apply this framework. This project aims to identify key stakeholders" understanding of the meaning of quality in the context of CAMHS.Method: The study sample comprised of three groups: (i) patients and carers, (ii) CAMHS clinical staff, and (iii) commissioners (Total N = 24). Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data and thematic analysis was applied to explore participant's views on the meaning and measurement of quality and how these might reflect the IOM indicators and their relevance in CAMHS.Results: An initial barrier to implementing quality care in CAMHS was the difficulty and limited agreement in defining the meaning of quality care, its measurement and implementation for all participants. Clinical staff defined quality as personal values, a set of practical rules, or clinical discharge rates; while patients suggested being more involved in the decision-making process. Commissioners, while supportive of adequate safeguarding and patient satisfaction procedures, did not explicitly link their view on quality to commissioning guidelines. Identifying practical barriers to implementing quality care was easier for all interviewees and common themes included: lack of meaningful measures, recourses, accountability, and training. All interviewees considered the IOM six markers as comprehensive and relevant to CAMHS.Conclusions: No respondent individually or within one stakeholder group identified more than a few of the indicators or barriers of a quality CAMHS service. However, the composite responses of the respondents enable us to develop a more complete picture of how to improve quality care in practice and guide future research in the area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]