Implications of shift work for junior doctors.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ahmed-Little Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1851999 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine what activities constitute the work of Foundation doctors and understand the factors that determine how that work is constructed.DesignCross-sectional mixed methods study. Questionnaire survey of the frequency with which activities specified in curricular documents are performed. Semistructured interviews and focus groups.SettingPostgraduate medical training in the UK.ParticipantsDoctors in their first 2 years of postgraduate practice (Foundation Programme). Staff who work with Foundation doctors-supervisors, nurses and employers (clinical; non-clinical).ResultsSurvey data from 3697 Foundation doctors identified curricular activities (41/103, 42%) that are carried out routinely (performed at least once or twice per week by >75% of respondents). However, another 30 activities (29%) were carried out rarely (at least once or twice per week by <25% respondents), largely because they are routinely part of nurses', and not doctors', work. Junior doctors indicated their work constituted three roles: 'support' of ward and team, 'independent practitioner' and 'learner'. The support function dominated work, but conflicted with stereotyped expectations of what 'being a doctor' would be. It was, however, valued by the other staff groups. The learner role was felt to be incidental to practice, but was couched in a limited definition of learning that related to new skills, rather than consolidation and practice. Activities and perceived role were shaped by the organisational context, medical hierarchies and through relationships with nurses, which could change unpredictably and cause tension. Training progression did not affect what activities were done, but supported greater autonomy in how they were carried out.ConclusionsNew doctors must be fit for multiple roles. Strategies for transition should manage graduates' expectations of real-world work, and encourage teams and organisations to better accommodate graduates. These strategies may help ensure that new doctors can adapt to the variable demands of the evolving multiprofessional workforce.
| S-EPMC6500191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective To report on the career intentions, three years after qualification, of 12 national cohorts of UK-trained doctors who qualified between 1974 and 2012, and, specifically, to compare recent UK medical graduates' intentions to work in medicine in the UK with earlier graduates. Design Questionnaire surveys of cohorts of UK medical graduates defined by year of graduation. Setting UK. Participants 30,272 UK medical graduates. Main outcome measures Stated level of intention to pursue a long-term career in medicine in the UK. Results The response rate was 62% (30,272/48,927). We examined responses to the question ' Apart from temporary visits abroad, do you intend to practise medicine in the United Kingdom for the foreseeable future?' Of doctors from UK homes, 90% had specified that they would 'definitely or probably' practise medicine in the UK in the surveys of 1977-1986, 81% in 1996-2011 and 64% in 2015. Those who said that they would probably or definitely not practise medicine in the UK comprised 5% in 1977-1986, 8% in 1996-2011 and 15% in 2015. Most who were not definite about a future career in UK medicine indicated that they would wish to practise medicine outside the UK rather than to leave medicine. Conclusions The wish to remain in UK medical practice in the 2015 survey was unprecedentedly low in this unique series of 40 years of surveys.
| S-EPMC5734480 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe transition from medical student to junior doctor in postgraduate training is a critical stage in career progression. We report junior doctors' views about the extent to which their medical school prepared them for their work in clinical practice.MethodsPostal questionnaires were used to survey the medical graduates of 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2005, from all UK medical schools, one year after graduation, and graduates of 2000, 2002 and 2005 three years after graduation. Summary statistics, chi-squared tests, and binary logistic regression were used to analyse the results. The main outcome measure was the level of agreement that medical school had prepared the responder well for work.ResultsResponse rate was 63.7% (11610/18216) in year one and 60.2% (8427/13997) in year three. One year after graduation, 36.3% (95% CI: 34.6, 38.0) of 1999/2000 graduates, 50.3% (48.5, 52.2) of 2002 graduates, and 58.2% (56.5, 59.9) of 2005 graduates agreed their medical school had prepared them well. Conversely, in year three agreement fell from 48.9% (47.1, 50.7) to 38.0% (36.0, 40.0) to 28.0% (26.2, 29.7). Combining cohorts at year one, percentages who agreed that they had been well prepared ranged from 82% (95% CI: 79-87) at the medical school with the highest level of agreement to 30% (25-35) at the lowest. At year three the range was 70% to 27%. Ethnicity and sex were partial predictors of doctors' level of agreement; following adjustment for them, substantial differences between schools remained. In years one and three, 30% and 34% of doctors specified that feeling unprepared had been a serious or medium-sized problem for them (only 3% in each year regarded it as serious).ConclusionsThe vast knowledge base of clinical practice makes full preparation impossible. Our statement about feeling prepared is simple yet discriminating and identified some substantial differences between medical schools. Medical schools need feedback from graduates about elements of training that could be improved.
| S-EPMC3020650 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical experience has traditionally been highly valued in medical education and clinical healthcare. On account of its multi-faceted nature, clinical experience is mostly difficult to articulate, and is mainly expressed in clinical situations as professional approaches. Due to retirement, hospitals in Scandinavia will soon face a substantial decrease in the number of senior specialist doctors, and it has been discussed whether healthcare will suffer an immense loss of experienced-based knowledge when this senior group leaves the organization. Both senior specialists and junior colleagues are often involved in clinical education, but the way in which these two groups vary in professional approaches and contributions to clinical education has not been so well described. Cognitive psychology has contributed to the understanding of how experience may influence professional approaches, but such studies have not included the effect of differences in position and responsibilities that junior and senior doctors hold in clinical healthcare. In the light of the discussion above, it is essential to describe the professional approaches of senior doctors in relation to those of their junior colleagues. This study therefore aims to describe and compare the professional approaches of junior and senior doctors when making clinical judgements.MethodsCritical incident technique was used in interviews with nine senior doctors and nine junior doctors in internal medicine. The interviews were subjected to qualitative content analysis.ResultSenior and junior doctors expressed a variety of professional approaches in clinical judgement as follows: use of theoretical knowledge, use of prior experience of cases and courses of events, use of ethical and moral values, meeting and communicating with the patient, focusing on available information, relying on their own ability, getting support and guidance from others and being directed by the organization.ConclusionThe most prominent varieties of professional approaches were seen in use of knowledge and work-related experience. Senior doctors know how the organization has worked in the past and have acquired techniques with respect to long-term decisions and their consequences. Junior doctors, on the other hand, have developed techniques and expertise for making decisions based on a restricted amount of information, in relation to patients' wellbeing as well as organizational opportunities and constraints. This study contributes to medical education by elucidating the variation in professional approaches among junior and senior doctors, which can be used as a basis for discussion about clinical judgement, in both pre-clinical and clinical education. Further research is required to explain how these professional approaches are expressed and used in clinical education.
| S-EPMC2693513 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To ensure systems in hospitals improve to make patient care safer, learning must occur when things go wrong. Incident reporting is one of the commonest mechanisms used to learn from harm events and near misses. Only a relatively small number of incidents that occur are actually reported and different groups of staff have different rates of reporting. Nationally, junior doctors are low reporters of incidents, a finding supported by our local data. We set out to explore the culture and awareness around incident reporting among our junior doctors, and to improve the incident reporting rate within this important staff group. In order to achieve this we undertook a number of work programmes focused on junior doctors, including: assessment of their knowledge, confidence and understanding of incident reporting, education on how and why to report incidents with a focus on reporting on clinical themes during a specific time period, and evaluation of the experience of those doctors who reported incidents. Junior doctors were asked to focus on incident reporting during a one week period. Before and after this focussed week, they were invited to complete a questionnaire exploring their confidence about what an incident was and how to report. Prior to "Incident Reporting Week", on average only two reports were submitted a month by junior doctors compared with an average of 15 per month following the education and awareness week. This project highlights the fact that using a focussed reporting period and/or specific clinical themes as an education tool can benefit a hospital by promoting awareness of incidents and by increasing incident reporting rates. This can only assist in improving hospital systems, and ultimately increase patient safety.
| S-EPMC4645800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis paper reports findings exploring work cultures, contexts and conditions associated with psychological distress in foundation and junior doctors.DesignQualitative study using in-depth interviews with 21 junior doctor participants. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and imported into NVivo V.11 to facilitate data management. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis employing the constant comparative method.SettingNHS in England.ParticipantsA purposive sample of 16 female and five male junior doctor junior doctor participants who self-identified as having stress, distress, anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, or having attempted to kill themselves.ResultsAnalysis reported four key themes: (1) workload and working conditions; (2) toxic work cultures-including abuse and bullying, sexism and racism, culture of blaming and shaming; (3) lack of support; (4) stigma and a perceived need to appear invulnerable.ConclusionThis study highlights the need for future solutions and interventions targeted at improving work cultures and conditions. There needs to be greater recognition of the components and cumulative effects of potentially toxic workplaces and stressors intrinsic to the work of junior doctors, such as the stress of managing high workloads and lack of access to clinical and emotional support. A cultural shift is needed within medicine to more supportive and compassionate leadership and work environments, and a zero-tolerance approach to bullying, harassment and discrimination.
| S-EPMC8231022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The transition period for new junior doctors is a daunting and challenging time, as vast amounts of information specific to each hospital, ward, and job must be learnt while maintaining patient care standards.[1] In NHS Tayside, Scotland, tips and guidance for each job are informally handed over from previous junior doctors to the next, resulting in an unreliable and unsustainable handover of information. Time must then be spent by new doctors learning the intricacies and practicalities of their new job, rather than spending time focusing on patient care. Our aim was to improve this transition period for new junior doctors to NHS Tayside through the creation and implementation of a junior doctors' handbook, which would provide information and practical advice on day to day life as a junior doctor. We hoped to implement this project by August 2015 to coincide with the arrival of these new doctors to NHS Tayside. Through repeat PDSA cycles we created a sustainable and reliable junior doctors' handbook, containing a centralised hub of information for doctors that was accessible through our health board's website. The junior doctors' handbook has been a highly beneficial resource that has been praised for its detailed information on all aspects of day to day life for doctors in NHS Tayside. Feedback also demonstrated that doctors felt the junior doctors' handbook had improved their efficiency. Our hope is that this project can continue to be developed within our hospital, but also to be used as an idea outside our health board to improve the transition period for new doctors on a wider scale.
| S-EPMC4752705 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1336754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ProblemCompliance with UK regulations on junior doctors' working hours cannot be achieved by manipulating rotas that maintain existing tiers of cover and work practices. More radical solutions are needed.DesignAudit of change.SettingPaediatric night rota in large children's hospital.Key measures for improvementCompliance with regulations on working hours assessed by diary cards; workload assessed by staff attendance on wards; patient safety assessed through critical incident reports.Strategies for changeDevelopment of new staff roles, followed by change from a partial shift rota comprising 11 doctors and one senior nurse, to a full shift night team comprising three middle grade doctors and two senior nurses.Effects of changeCompliance with regulations on working hours increased from 33% to 77%. Workload changed little and was well within the capacity of the new night team. The effect on patient care and on medical staff requires further evaluation.Lessons learntReduction of junior doctors' working hours requires changes to roles, processes, and practices throughout the organisation.
| S-EPMC1126659 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextThe transition from medical student to junior doctor is challenging. Junior doctors need to become part of the physician community of practice (CoP), while dealing with new responsibilities, tasks and expectations. At the same time, they need to learn how to navigate the frontiers and intersections with the other communities of practice that form the Landscape of Practice (LoP). This study aims to understand how junior doctors experience interprofessional collaboration (IPC) and what elements shape these experiences considering their transition to clinical practice.MethodsIn this multicentre qualitative study, 13 junior doctors individually drew two rich pictures of IPC experiences, one positive and one negative. A rich picture is a visual representation, a drawing of a particular situation intended to capture the complex and non-verbal elements of an experience. We used semi-structured interviews to deepen the understanding of junior doctors' depicted IPC experiences. We analysed both visual materials and interview transcripts iteratively, for which we adopted an inductive constructivist thematic analysis.ResultsWhile transitioning into a doctor, junior doctors become foremost members of the physician CoP and shape their professional identity based on perceived values in their physician community. Interprofessional learning occurs implicitly, without input from the interprofessional team. As a result, junior doctors struggle to bridge the gap between themselves and the interprofessional team, preventing IPC learning from developing into an integrative process. This professional isolation leaves junior doctors wandering the landscape of practice without understanding roles, attitudes and expectations of others.ConclusionsLearning IPC needs to become a collective endeavour and an explicit learning goal, based on multisource feedback to take advantage of the expertise already present in the LoP. Furthermore, junior doctors need a safe environment to embrace and reflect on the emotions aroused by interprofessional interactions, under the guidance of experienced facilitators.
| S-EPMC9305225 | biostudies-literature