Maggie E. Allen

Preparedness for practice : the perceptions of medical graduates and clinical teams

Background: Earlier research indicated that medical graduates feel unprepared to start work, and that this varies with medical school. Aims: To examine the extent to which graduates from different UK medical schools differed in their perceptions of preparedness for practice, and compare their perceptions with those of clinical team members. Method: An anonymous questionnaire assessing perceptions of 53 aspects of preparedness was devised, and administered to the graduating cohorts of three medical schools: Newcastle (systems-based, integrated curriculum); Warwick (graduate-entry) and Glasgow (problem-based learning). In addition, a triangulating questionnaire was cascaded via ward managers to doctors, nurses and pharmacists who worked with new graduates in their first posts. Results: The response rate for the cohort questionnaire was 69% (479/698). The overall mean preparedness score was 3.5 (on a five-point scale), with no significant difference between schools. On individual items, there were large differences within each site, but smaller differences between sites. Graduates felt most prepared for aspects of working with patients and colleagues, history taking and examination. They felt least prepared for completing a cremation form, some aspects of prescribing, complex practical procedures and for applying knowledge of alternative and complementary therapies, and of the NHS. A total of 80 clinical team questionnaires were completed, similarly showing substantial variation within each site, but smaller differences between sites. Conclusions: New doctors feel relatively unprepared for a number of aspects of practice, a perception shared by their colleagues. Although medical school has some effect on preparedness, greater differences are common across sites. Differences may reflect hidden influences common to all the schools, unintended consequences of national curriculum guidance or common traits in the graduate populations sampled. Further research is needed to identify the causes.

Newly qualified doctors’ perceptions of informal learning from nurses: implications for interprofessional education and practice

Abstract Newly qualified doctors spend much of their time with nurses, but little research has considered informal learning during that formative contact. This article reports findings from a multiple case study that explored what newly qualified doctors felt they learned from nurses in the workplace. Analysis of interviews conducted with UK doctors in their first year of practice identified four overarching themes: attitudes towards working with nurses, learning about roles, professional hierarchies and learning skills. Informal learning was found to contribute to the newly qualified doctors’ knowledge of their own and others’ roles. A dynamic hierarchy was identified: one in which a “pragmatic hierarchy” recognising nurses’ expertise was superseded by a “normative structural hierarchy” that reinforced the notion of medical dominance. Alongside the implicit learning of roles, nurses contributed to the explicit learning of skills and captured doctors’ errors, with implications for patient safety. The findings are discussed in relation to professional socialisation. Issues of power between the professions are also considered. It is concluded that increasing both medical and nursing professions’ awareness of informal workplace learning may improve the efficiency of education in restricted working hours. A culture in which informal learning is embedded may also have benefits for patient safety.

Design, validation and dissemination of an undergraduate assessment tool using SimMan in simulated medical emergencies

Background: Increasingly, medical students are being taught acute medicine using whole-body simulator manikins. Aim: We aimed to design, validate and make widely available two simple assessment tools to be used with Laerdal SimMan® for final year students. Methods: We designed two scenarios with criterion-based checklists focused on assessment and management of two medical emergencies. Members of faculty critiqued the assessments for face validity and checklists revised. We assessed three groups of different experience levels: Foundation Year 2 doctors, third and final year medical students. Differences between groups were analysed, and internal consistency and interrater reliability calculated. A generalisability analysis was conducted using scenario and rater as facets in design. Results: A maximum of two items were removed from either checklist following the initial survey. Significantly different scores for three groups of experience for both scenarios were reported (p < 0.001). Interrater reliability was excellent (r > 0.90). Internal consistency was poor (α < 0.5). Generalizability study results suggest that four cases would provide reliable discrimination between final year students. Conclusions: These assessments proved easy to administer and we have gone some way to demonstrating construct validity and reliability. We have made the material available on a simulator website to enable others to reproduce these assessments.