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.

UK medical graduates’ preparedness for practice (P4P): A multi-site qualitative study

Introduction Previous research has demonstrated mixed findings in terms of graduates’ P4P in terms of their knowledge and skills, and interpersonal, systemic and technological aspects (Monrouxe et al. 2014). Few studies have included diverse stakeholders from multiple sites and employing longitudinal methods. We therefore aimed to understand the extent to which UK medical graduates are prepared for practice as Foundation doctors. Methods Cross-sectional qualitative narrative interview and longitudinal audio-diary (LAD) studies with participants from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Study 1 comprised 27 group and 84 individual interviews (n=185) with participants representing different stakeholders (F1s, fully registered trainees, clinical educators, undergraduate/postgraduate deans/foundation programme directors, other healthcare professionals, employers, policy makers, government representatives, and patient/public representatives). Study 2 comprised LADs with 26 F1s over 4-months. Results Participants found it hard initially to conceptualise the term ‘preparedness for practice’. We identified 2187 personal incident narratives (i.e. stories of P4P experiences) across our data: 506 (23%) were classed as ‘prepared’, 730 (33%) as ‘unprepared’ and 951 (44%) as ‘unspecified’. We identified factors that facilitated (e.g. supportive supervisors/colleagues, opportunities for shadowing) and hindered (e.g. unsupportive or disrespectful colleagues, poor organization, understaffing) transitions into and through the Foundation programme. The LADs suggested that trainees felt more confident and competent over time, but that such development was not always linear as challenging circumstances (e.g. new rotations) sometimes made trainees feel unprepared for situations where they had previously indicated preparedness. Conclusion Our findings add to the existing evidence on medical graduates’ P4P in the UK (e.g. Goldacre et al. 2008; Illing et al. 2013). Our findings support the role of assistantships and supportive supervisors for smoothing transitions from student to F1. Further longitudinal and action research studies are now needed to follow students through their final-year assistantships and into their F2 year.

Implications of aligning full registration of doctors with medical school graduation:a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives

OBJECTIVES: The Shape of Training report recommended that full registration is aligned with medical school graduation. As part of a General Medical Council-funded study about the preparedness for practice of UK medical graduates, we explored UK stakeholders' views about this proposal using qualitative interviews (30 group and 87 individual interviews) and Framework Analysis.

SETTING: Four UK study sites, one in each country.Save

PARTICIPANTS: 185 individuals from eight stakeholder groups: (1) foundation year 1 (F1) doctors (n=34); (2) fully registered trainee doctors (n=33); (3) clinical educators (n=32); (4) undergraduate/postgraduate Deans, and Foundation Programme Directors (n=30); (5) other healthcare professionals (n=13); (6) employers (n=7); (7) policy and government (n=11); (8) patient and public representatives (n=25).

RESULTS: We identified four main themes: (1) The F1 year as a safety net: patients were protected by close trainee supervision and 'sign off' to prevent errors; trainees were provided with a safe environment for learning on the job; (2) Implications for undergraduate medical education: if the proposal was accepted, a 'radical review' of undergraduate curricula would be needed; undergraduate education might need to be longer; (3) Implications for F1 work practice: steps to protect healthcare team integration and ensure that F1 doctors stay within competency limits would be required; (4) Financial, structural and political implications: there would be cost implications for trainees; clarification of responsibilities between undergraduate and postgraduate medical education would be needed. Typically, each theme comprised arguments for and against the proposal.

CONCLUSIONS: A policy change to align the timing of full registration with graduation would require considerable planning and preliminary work. These findings will inform policymakers' decision-making. Regardless of the decision, medical students should take on greater responsibility for patient care as undergraduates, assessment methods in clinical practice and professionalism domains need development, and good practice in postgraduate supervision and support must be shared.