Search

Background: Historically, overseas-qualified doctors have been essential for meeting service needs in the UK National Health Service (NHS). However, these doctors encounter many cultural differences, in relation to training, the healthcare system and the doctor-patient relationship and training., Aim: To examine whether Hofstede's cultural model may help us understand the changes doctors from other countries experience on coming to work in the UK, and to identify implications for supervisors and clinical teams., Method: Telephone interviews were conducted with overseas medical graduates before starting work as a Foundation Year One (F1) doctor, followed up after four months and 12 months; and with educational supervisors. Data were analysed using a confirmatory thematic approach., Results: Sixty-four initial interviews were conducted with overseas doctors, 56 after four months, and 32 after 12 months. Twelve interviews were conducted with educational supervisors. The changes doctors experienced related particularly to Hofstede's dimensions of power distance (e.g. in relation to workplace hierarchies and inter-professional relationships), uncertainty avoidance (e.g. regarding ways of interacting) and individualism-collectivism (e.g., regarding doctor-patient/family relationship; assertiveness of individuals)., Conclusion: Hofstede's cultural dimensions may help us understand the adaptations some doctors have to make in adjusting to working in the UK NHS. This may promote awareness and understanding and greater 'cultural competence' amongst those working with them or supervising them in their training.

Newly qualified doctors spend much of their time with nurses, but little research has considered informal learning during that formative contact. This article reports findings from a multiple case study that explored what newly qualified doctors felt they learned from nurses in the workplace. Analysis of interviews conducted with UK doctors in their first year of practice identified four overarching themes: attitudes towards working with nurses, learning about roles, professional hierarchies and learning skills. Informal learning was found to contribute to the newly qualified doctors' knowledge of their own and others' roles. A dynamic hierarchy was identified: one in which a "pragmatic hierarchy" recognising nurses' expertise was superseded by a "normative structural hierarchy" that reinforced the notion of medical dominance. Alongside the implicit learning of roles, nurses contributed to the explicit learning of skills and captured doctors' errors, with implications for patient safety. The findings are discussed in relation to professional socialisation. Issues of power between the professions are also considered. It is concluded that increasing both medical and nursing professions' awareness of informal workplace learning may improve the efficiency of education in restricted working hours. A culture in which informal learning is embedded may also have benefits for patient safety.

Background: Earlier research indicated that medical graduates feel unprepared to start work, and that this varies with medical school., Aims: To examine the extent to which graduates from different UK medical schools differed in their perceptions of preparedness for practice, and compare their perceptions with those of clinical team members., Method: An anonymous questionnaire assessing perceptions of 53 aspects of preparedness was devised, and administered to the graduating cohorts of three medical schools: Newcastle (systems-based, integrated curriculum); Warwick (graduate-entry) and Glasgow (problem-based learning). In addition, a triangulating questionnaire was cascaded via ward managers to doctors, nurses and pharmacists who worked with new graduates in their first posts., Results: The response rate for the cohort questionnaire was 69% (479/698). The overall mean preparedness score was 3.5 (on a five-point scale), with no significant difference between schools. On individual items, there were large differences within each site, but smaller differences between sites. Graduates felt most prepared for aspects of working with patients and colleagues, history taking and examination. They felt least prepared for completing a cremation form, some aspects of prescribing, complex practical procedures and for applying knowledge of alternative and complementary therapies, and of the NHS. A total of 80 clinical team questionnaires were completed, similarly showing substantial variation within each site, but smaller differences between sites., Conclusions: New doctors feel relatively unprepared for a number of aspects of practice, a perception shared by their colleagues. Although medical school has some effect on preparedness, greater differences are common across sites. Differences may reflect hidden influences common to all the schools, unintended consequences of national curriculum guidance or common traits in the graduate populations sampled. Further research is needed to identify the causes.

Questionnaires provide a useful and versatile tool for new and occasional researchers, and can be applied to a wide range of topics. This paper provides simple guidance on some of the potential pitfalls in developing and running a questionnaire study, and how to avoid them. Each tip is illustrated with a real-life example from the development of a UK-wide questionnaire survey of trainee doctors and their educational supervisors.

Background: Health professionals are increasingly expected to identify their own learning needs through a process of ongoing self-assessment. Self-assessment is integral to many appraisal systems and has been espoused as an important aspect of personal professional behaviour by several regulatory bodies and those developing learning outcomes for clinical students. In this review we considered the evidence base on self-assessment since Gordon's comprehensive review in 1991. The overall aim of the present review was to determine whether specific methods of self-assessment lead to change in learning behaviour or clinical practice. Specific objectives sought evidence for effectiveness of self-assessment interventions to: a. improve perception of learning needs; b. promote change in learning activity; c. improve clinical practice; d. improve patient outcomes., Methods: The methods for this review were developed and refined in a series of workshops with input from an expert BEME systematic reviewer, and followed BEME guidance. Databases searched included Medline, CINAHL, BNI, Embase, EBM Collection, Psychlit, HMIC, ERIC, BEI, TIMElit and RDRB. Papers addressing self-assessment in all professions in clinical practice were included, covering under- and post-graduate education, with outcomes classified using an extended version of Kirkpatrick's hierarchy. In addition we included outcome measures of accuracy of self-assessment and factors influencing it. 5,798 papers were retrieved, 194 abstracts were identified as potentially relevant and 103 papers coded independently by pairs using an electronic coding sheet adapted from the standard BEME form. This total included 12 papers identified by hand-searches, grey literature, cited references and updating. The identification of a further 12 papers during the writing-up process resulted in a total of 77 papers for final analysis., Results: Although a large number of papers resulted from our original search only a small proportion of these were of sufficient academic rigour to be included in our review. The majority of these focused on judging the accuracy of self-assessment against some external standard, which raises questions about assumed reliability and validity of this 'gold standard'. No papers were found which satisfied Kirkpatrick's hierarchy above level 2, or which looked at the association between self-assessment and resulting changes in either clinical practice or patient outcomes. Thus our review was largely unable to answer the specific research questions and provide a solid evidence base for effective self-assessment. Despite this, there was some evidence that the accuracy of self-assessment can be enhanced by feedback, particularly video and verbal, and by providing explicit assessment criteria and benchmarking guidance. There was also some evidence that the least competent are also the least able to self-assess accurately. Our review recommends that these areas merit future systematic research to further our understanding of self-assessment., Conclusion: As in other BEME reviews, the methodological issues emerging from this review indicate a need for more rigorous study designs. In addition, it highlights the need to consider the potential for combining qualitative and quantitative data to further our understanding of how self-assessment can improve learning and professional clinical practice.

The focus of continuing professional development in general practice is shifting towards professional development and away from following personal areas of interest. Previous work has suggested that much CPD has not had an obvious impact in the three areas of professional development: the needs of individual doctors, patients and the needs of the NHS. We report on the results of a programme of study where developments in all three were perceived as being achieved. This outcome was realized by basing learning around real problems course members encountered in their daily work, using these real situations to identify theory, then reinforcing this learning through practical application.