Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:44:17.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality improvement supervision comparison between training and non training posts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2021

Qutub Jamali ,
Tarun Khanna  and
Gareth Thomas
Qutub Jamali*
Affiliation:
Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust
Tarun Khanna
Affiliation:
Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust
Gareth Thomas
Affiliation:
Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust
*
*corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

To explore the level of supervision between training and non-training posts at LSCFT.

Background

  • • Supervision is defined as ‘provision of guidance and feedback on matters of personal, professional and educational development in the context of a trainees' experience of providing safe and appropriate patient care’.

  • • Along with the trainees, doctors working in non-training posts such as staff grade, specialty doctors, trust grade doctors (TJD)and MTI (Medical training initiative) doctors form an integral part of patient care in the NHS.

Method

  • • A mixed method approach was adopted with both qualitative and quantitative data collected simultaneously in the form of an online questionnaire.

  • • An anonymous online questionnaire was sent to junior doctors currently in training and non-training posts at LSCFT in 2019 using Meridian software.

Result

1- Quantitative Data: - Participants included were doctors in training post such as Foundation Doctors (5), Psychiatry Core Trainees (6), GP STs (2) and doctors in non-training post such as TJD (4), Specialty Doctors (2) and MTI doctors (4). Based on the Meridian score, 84% of doctors were satisfied with the supervision. It was found that 72% of doctors received weekly supervisions, 10% monthly (1 TJD, 1 Foundation trainee) and16% bi-monthly (1 MTI, 1 SAS, 2 CTs). The data suggested that there was no difference in the frequency of supervisions between training and non-training posts at LSCFT.

2- Qualitative Data: - The feedback was common as there was no major difference between training and non-training doctors.

  • • Positives – WPBAs, discussion on reflections, management of complex cases and medication, personal issues affecting work.

  • • Negatives – Limited discussion on QI, Audit, Research and Psychotherapy.

- More specific help, need more support at times.

Conclusion

  1. 1. To prepare a checklist of contents to be discussed during supervision.

  2. 2. To prepare a timeline chart of supervision.

  3. 3. Preparing a ‘menu’ of QI projects that junior doctors can sign up to at the start of each post.

  4. 4. To formulate training packages available to support junior doctors with QI/Audits.

Type
Quality Improvement
Information
BJPsych Open , Volume 7 , Supplement S1: Abstracts of the RCPsych Virtual International Congress 2021, 21–24 June , June 2021 , pp. S196
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.