You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Understanding and improving the experience of paediatricians in training
  1. Ranjev Kainth1,
  2. Audrey Ker Shin Soo1,
  3. Jasbir Dhaliwal1,
  4. Bethany Smith1,
  5. Robert Edward Klaber1,2
  1. 1 London School of Paediatrics, Health Education England, London and South East, London, UK
  2. 2 Department of Paediatrics, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary’s Hospital, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ranjev Kainth, London School of Paediatrics, Health Education England, London and South East, Stewart House, 32 Russell Square, London WC1B 5DN, UK; ranjev.kainth{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2017-313180

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    In recent years, postgraduate training has changed significantly, with further changes to the training pathway on the horizon.1 Tensions have been heightened due to significant rota gaps, recent contract negotiations, ongoing challenges with trainee retention and poor morale.2 Coupled with intense service pressures, there is a need to understand the impact of these on paediatricians in training and develop mechanisms to improve the training experience.

    The General Medical Council is tasked with quality assurance through the national training survey (NTS) but lacks specific paediatric measures (eg, subspecialty and community domains) and historically has had poor uptake.3 The NTS begins surveying trainees only a few weeks into a post, generating suboptimal feedback, unlikely to be reflective of a 6-month period and with greater emphasis on identifying outliers.

    These factors have …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors RK and AKSS were the primary authors of the manuscript. JD, BS and REK reviewed, contributed and edited the letter. All authors had significant input in the design, execution and analysis of the surveys.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement Full reports of the surveys are available from the London School of Paediatrics for London-based trainees and consultants. For further information, contact the London School of Paediatrics or the corresponding author.