Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:49:08.647Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Enhancing Educational and Clinical Trainer's Support and Experience: A Quality Improvement Initiative

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Ashma Mohamed*
Affiliation:
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, United Kingdom
Zafrina Majid
Affiliation:
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, United Kingdom
Abiola Ige
Affiliation:
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, United Kingdom
Katie Kopala
Affiliation:
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, United Kingdom
Mary-Anne Cotton
Affiliation:
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting 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

The GMC Trainer's survey 2022 identified nearly two in ten (18%) trainers do not agree that their employer provides a supportive environment for everyone regardless of background, beliefs, or identity. A striking 52% of doctors working as trainers are identified as being at moderate to high risk of burnout. Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust(SABP) has 63 active educational and clinical trainers.

We aim to enhance the overall experience of Educational and Clinical Trainers in SABP by gaining insights into their views and experiences and identifying key areas for improvement to support trainers in their roles, thereby contributing to a more resilient healthcare workforce.

Methods

We devised a 16 item questionnaire to gather anonymous data on trainers' experiences and views in their roles. Our study utilised an observational quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional design. Data capture was done on Microsoft Forms and analysed using Excel.

Results

We had 70% response rate, 90% agreed or strongly agreed they had adequate support and training, 95% feel able to fulfil educational CPD for appraisal however only 83% were able to complete reflections on trainee feedback. 93% agreed or strongly agreed that they enjoy being a trainer but only 67% agreed or strongly agreed that they knew how to access support if they felt burnt out. Only 43% felt that they had adequate time in their schedule to provide supervision. Analysis of responses stratifying International medical graduates and years of experience being a trainer did not identify additional needs.

Conclusion

Effective trainers are fundamental in shaping future doctors. Our survey results highlighted that a high percentage of trainers enjoy their role. Based on the results, strategies were identified to improve support that can be implemented through trainers’ drop-in sessions, advertising trainers' training sessions with more notice and developing the resources on the intranet including improving content and adding videos of training sessions. We also identified that appraisal and revalidation requirements for trainers, trainee surveys needed to be better advertised to improve feedback rates. We recommended that a document on the online appraisal platform (SARD) be added to clarify the requirements for appraisal and revalidation, and how these can be met. We suggested that Associate Medical Directors consider the need to ringfence time for educational and clinical trainers in their job plans.

Type
2 Education and Training
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), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.