Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T20:51:00.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Foundation Doctors and the New Mental Health Curricula: What They Think and What They Want

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Ioana Varvari*
Affiliation:
Maudsley Institute of Psychiatry, London, United Kingdom
Tom Dewhurst
Affiliation:
Maudsley Institute of Psychiatry, London, United Kingdom
Corinne Jones
Affiliation:
Maudsley Institute of Psychiatry, London, United Kingdom
Richard Haslam
Affiliation:
Maudsley Institute of Psychiatry, London, United Kingdom
*
*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

The new United Kingdom Foundation Programme Curriculum was implemented in 2021 and emphasizes the importance of Foundation Trainees (FTs) acquiring mandatory core skills and knowledge in mental health. The primary aim of our study was to enquire if the FTs perceive the new psychiatry competencies to be important and relevant to their needs. Secondarily we compared what the curriculum is offering with what FTs wished to have been offered.

Methods

A hybrid questionnaire was delivered online via Google forms to all foundation doctors before and after their psychiatry rotation. Data collection took place between August 2021 and March 2023 from a sample of 85 FTs. The quantitative data were elicited via 5-point Likert scales that mapped FTs' perception of importance across areas of required knowledge and core psychiatric skills from ‘not at all’ important to ‘extremely’ important. The data were imported into Microsoft Excel and analysed via descriptive statistics. The qualitative component of eliciting what FTs want by using open-ended questions was analysed using content analysis.

Results

The entry survey data show a combined median perceived importance of 4 (Very important) for recognizing, assessing, and managing mental health conditions. Out of these, personality disorder rated lowest with a median answer of 3 (Fairly important). These scores have seen a significant improvement in the exit survey with an overall combined median result of 5 (Extremely important). But not all areas have seen improvement, for example, eating disorders and Somatisation disorders remained unchanged with a median of 4. Interestingly, the median perceived importance of practicing core skills and managing clinical scenarios has not shown an improvement, but a slight decrease over a few categories, going from a median answer of 5 to 4. The qualitative data show that FTs would have liked to learn more about Child and Developmental Psychiatry, Bereavement, and acute health context teaching. They also wanted to learn communication skills and about psychiatry career paths and academic opportunities.

Conclusion

The overall baseline perceived importance of psychiatry competencies was satisfactory, with most conditions being rated as very important. Post placements there was a shift in responses, with the same conditions being rated as extremely important. Supraspecialised areas continue to be perceived as least important and curiously, FT's importance perception of practicing core skills in the acute setting decreased. Future research should qualitatively look at why their perceptions changed and how we can improve context teaching in a heterogeneous group.

Type
Education and Training
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.