Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T09:55:11.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Supporting Well-being and Resilience: Delivering Interactive Workshops for Psychiatry Core Trainees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Kenneth Ruddock*
Affiliation:
NHS Forth Valley, Stirling, United Kingdom
Catriona Neil
Affiliation:
NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Suzanne Galloway
Affiliation:
NHS Lanarkshire, Lanarkshire, United Kingdom
Rekha Hegde
Affiliation:
NHS Lanarkshire, Lanarkshire, 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

Stress and burnout is increasingly recognised as an issue for doctors in training. The 2022 General Medical Council (GMC) National Training Survey revealed that 39% of respondents were suffering from burnout to a ‘high’ or ‘very high’ degree. 51% felt their work is emotionally exhausting. There are multiple sources of stress for psychiatry trainees, including clinical demands, adverse events, the impact of emotional labour and moral injury. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recognises the importance of supporting trainees’ well-being; this has been reflected with the inclusion of personal well-being-focussed key capabilities in the new Core Psychiatry Training curriculum.

Methods

To meet these needs, we developed and delivered two interactive face-to-face workshops for Year 1 Core Psychiatry Trainees (CT1s) in the West of Scotland. Training is embedded within the CT1 educational programme and facilitated by higher trainees. The sessions cover key aspects of well-being, including the physiology of stress, risk factors for burnout and the evidence base for developing resilience. We explore the impact of errors on doctors and the health service, relevant clinical governance systems and regulatory policies, focussing on psychiatry training issues. Feedback was obtained immediately after each session via anonymous questionnaire with a mixture of Likert scale and free text responses.

Results

There were 27 responses for workshop one and 21 for workshop two. 14 respondents felt the teaching should be mandatory for core training. There was mixed opinion regarding the overall benefit and optimum timing of the sessions within the training year. Overall, CT1s valued group discussions and wanted more time for this with less focus on GMC policy. There was also split opinion on the value of discussing institutional responses to errors, including significant adverse event reviews and Datix reporting.

Conclusion

Our feedback showed differing opinions on which topics should be covered during the training and their level of detail. Overall, the opportunity for group discussion – in order to share experiences with peers – appeared to be valued most. We feel the sessions provide new CT1s with an opportunity to explore problems they may encounter in a safe and supportive environment.

We aim to provide trainees with a ‘toolkit’ to support their personal well-being within the workplace, as well as demystifying clinical governance systems. We plan to further develop our course materials based on our feedback, and deliver the workshops again in 2023.

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.