Search

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 A dynamic hierarchy was identified: one in which a "pragmatic hierarchy" recognising nurses' expertise was superseded by a "normative structural hierarchy" that reinforced the notion of medical dominance.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: There is evidence that graduates of different medical schools vary in their preparedness for their first post. In 2003 Goldacre et al. reported that over 40% of UK medical graduates did not feel prepared and found large differences between graduates of different schools. A follow-up survey showed that levels of preparedness had increased yet there was still wide variation. This study aimed to examine whether medical graduates from three diverse UK medical schools were prepared for practice. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using a constructivist grounded theory approach. Prospective and cross-sectional data were collected from the three medical schools.A sample of 60 medical graduates (20 from each school) was targeted. They were interviewed three times: at the end of medical school (n = 65) and after four (n = 55) and 12 months (n = 46) as a Year 1 Foundation Programme doctor. Triangulated data were collected from clinicians via interviews across the three sites (n = 92). In addition three focus groups were conducted with senior clinicians who assess learning portfolios. The focus was on identifying areas of preparedness for practice and any areas of lack of preparedness. RESULTS: Although selected for being diverse, we did not find substantial differences between the schools. The same themes were identified at each site. Junior doctors felt prepared in terms of communication skills, clinical and practical skills and team working. They felt less prepared for areas of practice that are based on experiential learning in clinical practice: ward work, being on call, management of acute clinical situations, prescribing, clinical prioritisation and time management and dealing with paperwork. CONCLUSIONS: Our data highlighted the importance of students learning on the job, having a role in the team in supervised practice to enable them to learn about the duties and responsibilities of a new doctor in advance of starting work.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that graduates of different medical schools vary in their preparedness for their first post. In 2003 Goldacre et al. reported that over 40% of UK medical graduates did not feel prepared and found large differences between graduates of different schools. A follow-up survey showed that levels of preparedness had increased yet there was still wide variation. This study aimed to examine whether medical graduates from three diverse UK medical schools were prepared for practice. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using a constructivist grounded theory approach. Prospective and cross-sectional data were collected from the three medical schools.A sample of 60 medical graduates (20 from each school) was targeted. They were interviewed three times: at the end of medical school (n = 65) and after four (n = 55) and 12 months (n = 46) as a Year 1 Foundation Programme doctor. Triangulated data were collected from clinicians via interviews across the three sites (n = 92). In addition three focus groups were conducted with senior clinicians who assess learning portfolios. The focus was on identifying areas of preparedness for practice and any areas of lack of preparedness. RESULTS: Although selected for being diverse, we did not find substantial differences between the schools. The same themes were identified at each site. Junior doctors felt prepared in terms of communication skills, clinical and practical skills and team working. They felt less prepared for areas of practice that are based on experiential learning in clinical practice: ward work, being on call, management of acute clinical situations, prescribing, clinical prioritisation and time management and dealing with paperwork. CONCLUSIONS: Our data highlighted the importance of students learning on the job, having a role in the team in supervised practice to enable them to learn about the duties and responsibilities of a new doctor in advance of starting work.

AIM: This aim of this paper was to explore new doctors' preparedness for prescribing. METHODS: This was a multiple methods study including face-to-face and telephone interviews, questionnaires and secondary data from a safe prescribing assessment (n= 284). Three medical schools with differing curricula and cohorts were included: Newcastle (systems-based, integrated curriculum); Warwick (graduate entry) and Glasgow [problem-based learning (PBL)], with graduates entering F1 in their local deanery. The primary sample consisted of final year medical students, stratified by academic quartile (n= 65) from each of the three UK medical schools. In addition an anonymous cohort questionnaire was distributed at each site (n= 480), triangulating interviews were conducted with 92 clinicians and questionnaire data were collected from 80 clinicians who had worked with F1s. RESULTS: Data from the primary sample and cohort data highlighted that graduates entering F1 felt under-prepared for prescribing. However there was improvement over the F1 year through practical experience and support. Triangulating data reinforced the primary sample findings. Participants reported that learning in an applied setting would be helpful and increase confidence in prescribing. No clear differences were found in preparedness to prescribe between graduates of the three medical schools. CONCLUSION: The results form part of a larger study 'Are medical graduates fully prepared for practice?'. Prescribing was found to be the weakest area of practice in all sources of data. There is a need for more applied learning to develop skill-based, applied aspects of prescribing which would help to improve preparedness for prescribing.

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 i