How Prepared are UK Medical Graduates for Practice? Final report from a programme of research commissioned by the General Medical Council

This programme of research aimed to understand the extent to which current UK medical graduates are prepared for practice. Commissioned by the General Medical Council, we conducted: (1) A Rapid Review of the literature between 2009 and 2013; (2) narrative interviews with a range of stakeholders; and (3) longitudinal audio-diaries with Foundation Year 1 doctors. The Rapid Review (RR) resulted in data from 81 manuscripts being extracted and mapped against a coding framework (including outcomes from Tomorrow's Doctors (2009) (TD09)). A narrative synthesis of the data was undertaken. Narrative interviews were conducted with 185 participants from 8 stakeholder groups: F1 trainees, newly registered trainee doctors, clinical educators, undergraduate and postgraduate deans and foundation programme directors, other healthcare professionals, employers, policy and government and patient and public representatives. Longitudinal audio-diaries were recorded by 26 F1 trainees over 4 months. The data were analysed thematically and mapped against TD09. Together these data shed light onto how preparedness for practice is conceptualised, measured, how prepared UK medical graduates are for practice, the effectiveness of transition interventions and the currently debated issue of bringing full registration forward to align with medical students’ graduation. Preparedness for practice was conceptualised as both a long- and short-term venture that included personal readiness as well as knowledge, skills and attitudes. It has mainly been researched using self-report measures of generalised incidents that have been shown to be problematic. In terms of transition interventions: assistantships were found to be valuable and efficacious for proactive students as team members, shadowing is effective when undertaken close to employment/setting of F1 post and induction is generally effective but of inconsistent quality. The August transition was highlighted in our interview and audio-diary data where F1s felt unprepared, particularly for the step-change in responsibility, workload, degree of multitasking and understanding where to go for help. Evidence of preparedness for specific tasks, skills and knowledge was contradictory: trainees are well prepared for some practical procedures but not others, reasonably well prepared for history taking and full physical examinations, but mostly unprepared for adopting an holistic understanding of the patient, involving patients in their care, safe and legal prescribing, diagnosing and managing complex clinical conditions and providing immediate care in medical emergencies. Evidence for preparedness for interactional and interpersonal aspects of practice was inconsistent with some studies in the RR suggesting graduates were prepared for team working and communicating with colleagues and patients, but other studies contradicting this. Interview and audio-diary data highlights concerns around F1s preparedness for communicating with angry or upset patients and relatives, breaking bad news, communicating with the wider team (including interprofessionally) and handover communication. There was some evidence in the RR to suggest that graduates were unprepared for dealing with error and safety incidents and lack an understanding of how the clinical environment works. Interview and audio-diary data backs this up, adding that F1s are also unprepared for understanding financial aspects of healthcare. In terms of being personally prepared, RR, interview and audio diary evidence is mixed around graduates’ preparedness for identifying their own limitations, but all data points to graduates’ difficulties in the domain of time management. In terms of personal and situational demographic factors, the RR found that gender did not typically predict perceptions of preparedness, but graduates from more recent cohorts, graduate entry students, graduates from problem based learning courses, UK educated graduates and graduates with an integrated degree reported feeling better prepared. The longitudinal audio-diaries provided insights into the preparedness journey for F1s. There seems to be a general development in the direction of trainees feeling more confident and competent as they gain more experience. However, these developments were not necessarily linear as challenging circumstances (e.g. new specialty, new colleagues, lack of staffing) sometimes made them feel unprepared for situations where they had previously indicated preparedness.

Core Outcomes in Ventilation Trials (COVenT): protocol for a core outcome set using a Delphi survey with a nested randomised trial and observational cohort study

Background
Among clinical trials of interventions that aim to modify time spent on mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients there is considerable inconsistency in chosen outcomes and how they are measured. The Core Outcomes in Ventilation Trials (COVenT) study aims to develop a set of core outcomes for use in future ventilation trials in mechanically ventilated adults and children.

Methods/design
We will use a mixed methods approach that incorporates a randomised trial nested within a Delphi study and a consensus meeting. Additionally, we will conduct an observational cohort study to evaluate uptake of the core outcome set in published studies at 5 and 10 years following core outcome set publication. The three-round online Delphi study will use a list of outcomes that have been reported previously in a review of ventilation trials. The Delphi panel will include a range of stakeholder groups including patient support groups. The panel will be randomised to one of three feedback methods to assess the impact of the feedback mechanism on subsequent ranking of outcomes. A final consensus meeting will be held with stakeholder representatives to review outcomes.

Discussion
The COVenT study aims to develop a core outcome set for ventilation trials in critical care, explore the best Delphi feedback mechanism for achieving consensus and determine if participation increases use of the core outcome set in the long term.

COS-STAR: a reporting guideline for studies developing core outcome sets (protocol)

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets can increase the efficiency and value of research and, as a result, there are an increasing number of studies looking to develop core outcome sets (COS). However, the credibility of a COS depends on both the use of sound methodology in its development and clear and transparent reporting of the processes adopted. To date there is no reporting guideline for reporting COS studies. The aim of this programme of research is to develop a reporting guideline for studies developing COS and to highlight some of the important methodological considerations in the process.

METHODS/DESIGN: The study will include a reporting guideline item generation stage which will then be used in a Delphi study. The Delphi study is anticipated to include two rounds. The first round will ask stakeholders to score the items listed and to add any new items they think are relevant. In the second round of the process, participants will be shown the distribution of scores for all stakeholder groups separately and asked to re-score. A final consensus meeting will be held with an expert panel and stakeholder representatives to review the guideline item list. Following the consensus meeting, a reporting guideline will be drafted and review and testing will be undertaken until the guideline is finalised. The final outcome will be the COS-STAR (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting) guideline for studies developing COS and a supporting explanatory document.

DISCUSSION: To assess the credibility and usefulness of a COS, readers of a COS development report need complete, clear and transparent information on its methodology and proposed core set of outcomes. The COS-STAR guideline will potentially benefit all stakeholders in COS development: COS developers, COS users, e.g. trialists and systematic reviewers, journal editors, policy-makers and patient groups.

Factors influencing the success of rural cataract surgery programs in China:The study of hospital administration and relative productivity (SHARP)

PURPOSE. To explore factors potentially influencing the success or failure of rural Chinese hospitals in increasing cataract surgical output and quality. METHODS. Focus groups (FGs, n = 10) were conducted with hospital administrators, doctors, and nurses at 28 county hospitals in Guangdong Province. Discussions explored respondents' views on increasing surgical volume and quality and improving patient satisfaction. Respondents numerically ranked possible strategies to increase surgical volume and quality and patient satisfaction. FG transcripts were independently coded by two reviewers utilizing the constant comparative method following the grounded theory approach, and numerical responses were scored and ranked. RESULTS. Ten FGs and 77 ranking questionnaires were completed by 33 administrators, 23 doctors, and 21 nurses. Kappa values for the two coders were greater than 0.7 for all three groups. All groups identified a critical need for enhanced management training for hospital directors. Doctors and nurses suggested reducing surgical fees to enhance uptake, although administrators were resistant to this. Although doctors saw the need to improve equipment, administrators felt current material conditions were adequate. Respondents agreed that patient satisfaction was generally high, and did not view increasing patient satisfaction as a priority. CONCLUSIONS. Our findings highlight agreements and disagreements among the three stakeholder groups about improving surgical output and quality, which can inform strategies to improve cataract programs in rural China. Respondents' beliefs about high patient satisfaction are not in accord with other studies in the area, highlighting a potential area for intervention. © 2013 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.

Attitudes of physicians, patients, and village health workers toward glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy in rural China:A focus group study

Objective: To understand the knowledge and attitudes of rural Chinese physicians, patients, and village health workers (VHWs) toward diabetic eye disease and glaucoma. Methods: Focus groups for each of the 3 stakeholders were conducted in 3 counties (9 groups). The focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and coded using specialized software. Responses to questions about barriers to compliance and interventions to remove these barriers were also ranked and scored. Results: Among 22 physicians, 23 patients, and 25 VHWs, knowledge about diabetic eye disease was generally good, but physicians and patients understood glaucoma only as an acutely symptomatic disease of relatively low prevalence. Physicians did not favor routine pupillary dilation to detect asymptomatic disease, expressing concerns about workflow and danger and inconvenience to patients. Providers believed that cost was the main barrier to patient compliance, whereas patients ranked poorly trained physicians as more important. All 3 stakeholder groups ranked financial interventions to improve compliance (eg, direct payment, lotteries, and contracts) low and preferred patient education and telephone contact by nurses. All the groups somewhat doubted the ability of VHWs to screen for eye disease accurately, but patients were generally willing to pay for VHW screening. The VHWs were uncertain about the value of eye care training but might accept it if accompanied by equipment. They did not rank payment for screening services as important. Conclusions: Misconceptions about glaucoma's asymptomatic nature and an unwillingness to routinely examine asymptomatic patients must be addressed in training programs. Home contact by nurses and patient education may be the most appropriate interventions to improve compliance.

Performance Management in the UK Public Sector: addressing multiple stakeholder complexity

Purpose The aim of this paper is to explore the issues involved in developing and applying performance management approaches within a large UK public sector department using a multiple stakeholder perspective and an accompanying theoretical framework. Design/methodology/approach An initial short questionnaire was used to determine perceptions about the implementation and effectiveness of the new performance management system across the organisation. In total, 700 questionnaires were distributed. Running concurrently with an ethnographic approach, and informed by the questionnaire responses, was a series of semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Findings Staff at all levels had an understanding of the new system and perceived it as being beneficial. However, there were concerns that the approach was not continuously managed throughout the year and was in danger of becoming an annual event, rather than an ongoing process. Furthermore, the change process seemed to have advanced without corresponding changes to appraisal and reward and recognition systems. Thus, the business objectives were not aligned with motivating factors within the organisation. Research limitations/implications Additional research to test the validity and usefulness of the theoretical model, as discussed in this paper, would be beneficial. Practical implications The strategic integration of the stakeholder performance measures and scorecards was found to be essential to producing an overall stakeholder-driven strategy within the case study organisation. Originality/value This paper discusses in detail the approach adopted and the progress made by one large UK public sector organisation, as it attempts to develop better relationships with all of its stakeholders and hence improve its performance. This paper provides a concerted attempt to link theory with practice.

Authenticity and stakeholder planning in the segregated city

This paper is concerned with the production and reproduction of segregation in Northern Ireland and how territoriality has impacted on the Protestant community in Derry/Londonderry. The city was pivotal in the development of the most recent conflict, has a majority Catholic population, sits on a contested border and has attempted to respond to expressions of alienation that have emerged from the Protestant community. The research used multiple methods to understand the nature of alienation and exclusion using secondary data, a quantitative household survey, in-depth interviews and focus
groups. This empirical commitment was important in identifying and unpacking the claims of various stakeholders with an interest in the use and development of the area. It is argued here that a version of Collaborative Planning provides a loosely articulated conceptual and methodological framework for drawing Protestant communities into the wider planning framework for the city. The data, however, suggest that the nature of stakeholders is complex and contradictory, and discursive practice that seeks consensus has limits, especially in validating or legitimating the assertions of self-acclaimed stakeholders. The research shows that the Protestant community had declined and residualised but had little experience of direct conflict with the majority community. Moreover, the Protestant community is now more likely to use the city centre (a predominantly Catholic space) for consumption and work, and its demographic decline has stopped. These findings are important as policy responses and community relations programmes have failed to distinguish between measurable socioeconomic needs and claims concerning ethnic alienation based on emotion and manipulation. Such alienation has tended to bolster single identity communities who have little or no prospect and/or knowledge of the collaborative efforts required to deliver meaningful regeneration. More realistic strategies based on agonism focus attention on power relations and the authenticity of positions adopted by competing interests in land use management and change. The paper concludes by highlighting the need to acknowledge and value contestation but to challenge sectarian discourses represented as legitimate claims about community needs and priorities.

Defining the content and delivery of an intervention to Change AdhereNce to treatment in BonchiEctasis (CAN-BE): a qualitative approach incorporating the Theoretical Domains Framework, behavioural change techniques and stakeholder expert panels

Background
Low patient adherence to treatment is associated with poorer health outcomes in bronchiectasis. We sought to use the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) (a framework derived from 33 psychological theories) and behavioural change techniques (BCTs) to define the content of an intervention to change patients’ adherence in bronchiectasis (Stage 1 and 2) and stakeholder expert panels to define its delivery (Stage 3).

Methods
We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients with bronchiectasis about barriers and motivators to adherence to treatment and focus groups or interviews with bronchiectasis healthcare professionals (HCPs) about their ability to change patients’ adherence to treatment. We coded these data to the 12 domain TDF to identify relevant domains for patients and HCPs (Stage 1). Three researchers independently mapped relevant domains for patients and HCPs to a list of 35 BCTs to identify two lists (patient and HCP) of potential BCTs for inclusion (Stage 2). We presented these lists to three expert panels (two with patients and one with HCPs/academics from across the UK). We asked panels who the intervention should target, who should deliver it, at what intensity, in what format and setting, and using which outcome measures (Stage 3).

Results
Eight TDF domains were perceived to influence patients’ and HCPs’ behaviours: Knowledge, Skills, Beliefs about capability, Beliefs about consequences, Motivation, Social influences, Behavioural regulation and Nature of behaviours (Stage 1). Twelve BCTs common to patients and HCPs were included in the intervention: Monitoring, Self-monitoring, Feedback, Action planning, Problem solving, Persuasive communication, Goal/target specified:behaviour/outcome, Information regarding behaviour/outcome, Role play, Social support and Cognitive restructuring (Stage 2). Participants thought that an individualised combination of these BCTs should be delivered to all patients, by a member of staff, over several one-to-one and/or group visits in secondary care. Efficacy should be measured using pulmonary exacerbations, hospital admissions and quality of life (Stage 3).

Conclusions
Twelve BCTs form the intervention content. An individualised selection from these 12 BCTs will be delivered to all patients over several face-to-face visits in secondary care. Future research should focus on developing physical materials to aid delivery of the intervention prior to feasibility and pilot testing. If effective, this intervention may improve adherence and health outcomes for those with bronchiectasis in the future.

IMPLEMENTING BACK PAIN TREATMENT PATHWAYS IN CLINICAL PRACTICE: QUALITATATIVE ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS

Background
Evidence-based practice advocates utilising best current research evidence, while reflecting patient preference and clinical expertise in decision making. Successfully incorporating this evidence into practice is a complex process. Based on recommendations of existing guidelines and systematic evidence reviews conducted using the GRADE approach, treatment pathways for common spinal pain disorders were developed.

Aims
The aim of this study was to identify important potential facilitators to the integration of these pathways into routine clinical practice.

Methods
A 22 person stakeholder group consisting of patient representatives, clinicians, researchers and members of relevant clinical interest groups took part in a series of moderated focus groups, followed up with individual, semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using content analysis.

Results
Participants identified a number of issues which were categorized into broad themes. Common facilitators to implementation included continual education and synthesis of research evidence which is reflective of everyday practice; as well as the use of clear, unambiguous messages in recommendations. Meeting additional training needs in new or extended areas of practice was also recognized as an important factor. Different stakeholders identified specific areas which could be associated with successful uptake. Patients frequently defined early involvement in a shared decision making process as important. Clinicians identified case based examples and information on important prognostic indicators as useful tools to aiding decisions.

Conclusion
A number of potential implementation strategies were identified. Further work will examine the impact of these and other important factors on the integration of evidence-based treatment recommendations into clinical practice.