Dataset Information

Are there differences between those doctors who apply for a training post in Foundation Year 2 and those who take time out of the training pathway? A UK multicohort study.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Knowledge about the career decisions of doctors in relation to specialty (residency) training is essential in terms of UK workforce planning. However, little is known about which doctors elect to progress directly from Foundation Year 2 (F2) into core/specialty/general practice training and those who instead opt for an alternative next career step. OBJECTIVE:To identify if there were any individual differences between these two groups of doctors. DESIGN:This was a longitudinal, cohort study of 'home' students who graduated from UK medical schools between 2010 and 2015 and completed the Foundation Programme (FP) between 2012 and 2017.We used the UK Medical Education Database (UKMED) to access linked data from different sources, including medical school performance, specialty training applications and career preferences. Multivariable regression analyses were used to predict the odds of taking time out of training based on various sociodemographic factors. RESULTS:18 380/38 905 (47.2%) of F2 doctors applied for, and accepted, a training post offer immediately after completing F2. The most common pattern for doctors taking time out of the training pathway after FP was to have a 1-year (7155: 38.8%) or a 2-year break (2605: 14.0%) from training. The odds of not proceeding directly into core or specialty training were higher for those who were male, white, entered medical school as (high) school leavers and whose parents were educated to degree level. Doctors from areas of low participation in higher education were significantly (0.001) more likely to proceed directly into core or specialty training. CONCLUSION:The results show that UK doctors from higher socioeconomic groups are less likely to choose to progress directly from the FP into specialty training. The data suggest that widening access and encouraging more socioeconomic diversity in our medical students may be helpful in terms of attracting F2s into core/specialty training posts.

SUBMITTER: Cleland J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6886964 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To explore the reasons that doctors choose to leave UK medicine after their foundation year two posts. SETTING:All four regions of Scotland. PARTICIPANTS:Foundation year two doctors (F2s) working throughout Scotland who were considering leaving UK medicine after foundation training were recruited on a volunteer basis. Maximum variation between participants was sought. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Semistructured interviews were coded using template analysis. Six perspectives, described by Feldman and Ng, were used as the initial coding template. The codes were then configured to form a framework that explores the interplay of factors influencing Foundation Year 2 (F2) doctors' decisions to leave UK medicine. RESULTS:Seventeen participants were interviewed. Six perspectives were explored. Structural influences (countrywide and worldwide issues) included visas, economic and political considerations, structure of healthcare systems and availability of junior doctor jobs worldwide. Organisational influences (the National Health Service (NHS) and other healthcare providers) included staffing and compensation policies, the working environment and the learning environment. Occupational influences (specific to being a junior doctor) comprised the junior doctor contract, role and workload, pursuit of career interests and the structure of training. Work group influences (relationships with colleagues) included support at work, task interdependence and use of locums. Personal life influences consisted of work-life balance, and support in resolving work-life conflict. The underlying theme of 'taking a break' recurred through multiple narratives. CONCLUSIONS:F2s give reasons similar to those given by any professional considering a change in their job. However, working within the NHS as an F2 doctor brought specific challenges, such as a need to make a choice of specialty within the F2 year, exposure to workplace bullying and difficulties in raising concerns. Despite these challenges, most F2s did not view their decision to leave as a permanent job change, but as a temporary break from their current working lives.

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.

Project description:The UK, like many high-income countries, is experiencing a worsening shortfall of general practitioners (GPs) alongside an increasing demand for their services. At the same time, factors influencing junior doctors' decisions to apply for GP training are only partially understood and research in this area has been hampered by the difficulties in connecting the datasets that map the journey from student to qualified GP. The UK Medical Education Database (UKMED) has been established to ameliorate this problem by linking institutional data across the spectrum of medical education from school to specialty training. Our study aimed to use UKMED to investigate which demographic and educational factors are associated with junior doctors' decisions to apply for GP training.Study data, provided by the UKMED Development Group and accessed remotely, contained longitudinal educational and sociodemographic information on all doctors who entered UK medical schools in the 2007/2008 academic year and who made first-time specialty training applications in 2015. We used multivariable logistic regression models to investigate two binary outcomes, namely (1) application to GP training, possibly alongside applications to other specialties, and (2) application solely to GP training.Of 7634 doctors in the sample, 43% applied to GP training possibly alongside other specialities and 26% applied solely to GP training. The odds of applying to GP training were associated with particular demographic factors (being female, non-white or secondary educated in the UK increased the odds of application) and educational factors (non-graduate entry, intercalation and above-median academic performance during medical school all decreased the odds of application). After adjusting for these factors, both the medical school and the foundation school attended were independently associated with the odds of applying to GP training.Our findings suggest that the supply and demand imbalance in UK primary care might be improved by (1) efforts to attract greater numbers of female, non-white and UK secondary-educated students into medical schools, and (2) targeting resources at medical and foundation schools that deliver doctors likely to fill significant gaps in the workforce. Further research is required to better understand inter-school differences and to develop strategies to improve recruitment of GP trainees.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the contribution of physician associates to the processes and outcomes of emergency medicine consultations with that of foundation year two doctors-in-training.DesignMixed-methods study: retrospective chart review using 4 months' anonymised clinical record data of all patients seen by physician associates or foundation year two doctors-in-training in 2016; review of a subsample of 40 records for clinical adequacy; semi-structured interviews with staff and patients; observations of physician associates.SettingThree emergency departments in England.ParticipantsThe records of 8816 patients attended by 6 physician associates and 40 foundation year two doctors-in-training; of these n=3197 had the primary outcome recorded (n=1129 physician associates, n=2068 doctor); 14 clinicians and managers and 6 patients or relatives for interview; 5 physician associates for observation.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was unplanned re-attendance at the same emergency department within 7 days.Secondary outcomesconsultation processes, clinical adequacy of care, and staff and patient experience.ResultsRe-attendances within 7 days (n=194 (6.1%)) showed no difference between physician associates and foundation year two doctors-in-training (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.24, p=0.437). If seen by a physician associate, patients were more likely receive an X-ray investigation (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.72 to 4.24), p<0.001), after adjustment for patient characteristics, triage severity of condition and statistically significant clinician intraclass correlation. Clinical reviewers found almost all patients' charts clinically adequate. Physician associates were evaluated as assessing patients in a similar way to foundation year two doctors-in-training and providing continuity in the team. Patients were positive about the care they had received from a physician associate, but had poor understanding of the role.ConclusionsPhysician associates in emergency departments in England treated patients with a range of conditions safely, and at a similar level to foundation year two doctors-in-training, providing clinical operational efficiencies.

Project description:PurposeFoundation years or internships are an important period for junior doctors to apply their knowledge and gain clinical competency. Experiences gained during the foundation years or internships are likely to inform newly qualified doctors' opinions about how they want to continue their career. We aimed to understand how medical doctors' internship experiences influence their career intention/decision.MethodsWe conducted qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography. We searched six electronic bibliographic databases for papers published between 2000-2020 and included papers exploring how foundation years or internship experiences shape doctors' career intention/decisions, including in relation to migration, public/private/dual practice preference, rural/urban preference, and specialty choice. We used the GRADE-CERQual framework to rate confidence in review findings.ResultsWe examined 23 papers out of 6085 citations screened. We abstracted three high-level inter-related themes across 14 conceptual categories: (1) Deciding the personal best fit both clinically and in general (which option is 'more me'?) through hands-on and real-life experiences (2) Exploring, experiencing and witnessing workplace norms; and (3) Worrying about the future in terms of job market policies, future training and professional development opportunities. Confidence in findings varied but was rated high in 8 conceptual categories.ConclusionsOur meta-ethnographic review revealed a range of ways in which internship experience shapes medical doctors' career intentions/decisions allowing us to produce a broad conceptual model of this phenomenon. The results highlight the importance of ensuring sufficient, positive and inspiring clinical exposure, improving workplace environment, relationship and culture, refraining from undermining specific specialities and communicating contractual and job market policies early on to young doctors, in order to attract doctors to less popular specialties or work locations where they are most needed. We propose our conceptual model should be further tested in new research across a range of contexts.

Dataset Information

Are there differences between those doctors who apply for a training post in Foundation Year 2 and those who take time out of the training pathway? A UK multicohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets