Jonathan Gibson

How do workplaces, working practices and colleagues affect UK doctors' career decisions? A qualitative study of junior doctors’ career decision-making in the UK.

Objectives This study draws on an in-depth investigation of factors that influenced the career decisions of junior doctors. Setting Junior doctors in the UK can choose to enter specialty training (ST) programmes within 2 years of becoming doctors. Their specialty choices contribute to shaping the balance of the future medical workforce, with views on general practice (GP) careers of particular interest because of current recruitment difficulties. This paper examines how experiences of medical work and perceptions about specialty training shape junior doctors’ career decisions. Participants Twenty doctors in the second year of a Foundation Training Programme in England were recruited. Purposive sampling was used to achieve a diverse sample from respondents to an online survey. Results Narrative interviewing techniques encouraged doctors to reflect on how experiences during medical school and in medical workplaces had influenced their preferences and perceptions of different specialties. They also spoke about personal aspirations, work priorities and their wider future. Junior doctors’ decisions were informed by knowledge about the requirements of ST programmes and direct observation of the pressures under which ST doctors worked. When they encountered negative attitudes towards a specialty they had intended to choose, some became defensive while others kept silent. Achievement of an acceptable work-life balance was a central objective that could override other preferences. Events linked with specific specialties influenced doctors’ attitudes towards them. For example, findings confirmed that while early, positive experiences of GP work could increase its attractiveness, negative experiences in GP settings had the opposite effect. Conclusions Junior doctors’ preferences and perceptions about medical work are influenced by multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors and experiences. This paper highlights the importance of understanding how perceptions are formed and preferences are developed, as a basis for generating learning and working environments that nurture students and motivate their professional careers.

New professional roles and patient satisfaction: Evidence from a European survey along three clinical pathways

This paper reports the results of an empirical analysis exploring the impact of new professions (eg a physician associate) and new professional roles on patient experiences of and satisfaction with care. A sub set of data from a patient survey conducted as part of the MUNROS programme of work was used. The overall survey aim was to describe and quantify the use of new professionals and new roles for established health care professionals other than medical doctors, in primary and secondary care sectors in three care pathways in nine European countries Ordered logit models were used to investigate the association between: (1) patient satisfaction with the last visit; (2) with their care provider; (3) with the information provided and a set of covariates explaining the involvement of new professional roles in three clinical pathways: type 2 diabetes, heart disease and breast cancer. For patients with breast cancer, high levels of satisfaction are associated with the involvement of new professions/professional roles in the provision of conditions specific education and monitoring. For patients with heart disease, the involvement of new professions/professional roles is likely to have a negative impact on satisfaction. For patients with Type 2 diabetes results are ambivalent. Patients belonging to countries experiencing innovative models of healthcare delivery and with high levels of involvement of new professions/professional roles are generally more satisfied. In conclusion, the introduction of new professions does not affect patient satisfaction negatively, therefore introducing new health professional roles is a pursuable strategy from a patient satisfaction perspective, at least for breast cancer and type 2 diabetes.

General practitioners' views of clinically led commissioning: cross-sectional survey in England.

Objectives Involving general practitioners (GPs) in the commissioning/purchasing of services has been an important element in English health policy for many years. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 handed responsibility for commissioning of the majority of care for local populations to GP-led Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). In this paper, we explore GP attitudes to involvement in commissioning and future intentions for engagement. Design and setting Survey of a random sample of GPs across England in 2015. Method The Eighth National GP Worklife Survey was distributed to GPs in spring 2015. Responses were received from 2611 respondents (response rate = 46%). We compared responses across different GP characteristics and conducted two sample tests of proportions to identify statistically significant differences in responses across groups. We also used multivariate logistic regression to identify the characteristics associated with wanting a formal CCG role in the future. Results While GPs generally agree that they can add value to aspects of commissioning, only a minority feel that this is an important part of their role. Many current leaders intend to quit in the next 5 years, and there is limited appetite among those not currently in a formal role to take up such a role in the future. CCGs were set up as ‘membership organisations’ but only a minority of respondents reported feeling that they had ‘ownership’ of their local CCG and these were often GPs with formal CCG roles. However, respondents generally agree that the CCG has a legitimate role in influencing the work that they do. Conclusion CCGs need to engage in active succession planning to find the next generation of GP leaders. GPs believe that CCGs have a legitimate role in influencing their work, suggesting that there may be scope for CCGs to involve GPs more fully in roles short of formal leadership.