Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T12:36:06.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Understanding Issues Faced by West Midlands’ International Medical Graduates (IMG) Psychiatry Trainees and How to Support them

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Supriya Dastidar*
Affiliation:
Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Oluwadamilola Ogunsina
Affiliation:
Black Country Healthcare Foundation Trust, Dudley, United Kingdom
Asma Javed
Affiliation:
Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, 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 2023 workforce report indicates that doctors with primary medical qualification (PMQ) outside United Kingdom (UK) made up 62% of new additions to the register in 2022, with international medical graduates (IMGs) from outside the European Economic Area accounting for a further 10%. In 2023, 49.8% of psychiatry trainees in West Midlands were IMGs.

We have enough evidence to show that IMGs experience significant differential attainment in both training and exams. They also have an added burden of adjusting to a new country, language, culture, and society, not to mention adapting to a novel medical system and work culture. Attempts have been made to address this through induction, clinical supervision, etc.

This survey aims to understand the challenges faced by West Midlands psychiatry IMG trainees and to identify how best to support their needs.

Methods

A questionnaire survey was designed using the Microsoft forms platform and disseminated via the West Midlands School of Psychiatry in October 2023 to all trainees whose PMQ was outside UK. The survey gathered feedback on quality of inductions received, clinical supervision, difficulties experienced in training/examinations and awareness of available IMG-specific resources.

Results

36 trainees with PMQ from 14 countries outside the UK completed the survey. 31% of the respondents were CT1 trainees. 17% had less than a year of NHS experience. All respondents had attended their current job induction. 64% rated their workplace induction as ‘Good’ or above, 50% rated trust and deanery induction at ‘Good’ or above. Only 17% of respondents had received IMG-specific induction. Many felt that induction was an information overload in a short space of time. 83% received weekly, hourly supervision. 69.4% rated support from their supervisor as ‘Very good’ or above. Respondents reported difficulties in immigration, finances, systemic racism, cultural and language adaptation. Other difficulties include portfolio, research experience and audits. MRCPsych exam difficulties were reported in 46% respondents especially around study materials and preparation. Trainees wanted IMG specific induction and supervision, pastoral care, portfolio support, MRCPsych exam support, mentoring, guidance around career progression and research.

Conclusion

The survey results show that IMG trainees do not receive appropriate and necessary IMG-specific induction and supervision even though they make up nearly half of the trainee cohort. The Deanery, NHS trusts and clinical supervisors can utilize the results of this survey to inform strategies to support IMGs better. Focus groups are due to be held shortly to get further qualitative feedback.

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.