4.5 Article

Views of junior doctors about their work: survey of qualifiers of 1993 and 1996 from United Kingdom medical schools

Journal

MEDICAL EDUCATION
Volume 34, Issue 5, Pages 348-354

Publisher

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00573.x

Keywords

attitude of health personnel; education, medical, graduate; Great Britain; hospital medical staff; job satisfaction; sex factors; workload

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To investigate the views of junior doctors about their work. Design Postal questionnaire surveys. Setting United Kingdom. Subjects Doctors who graduated from medical schools in the United Kingdom in 1996, surveyed at the end of their preregistration year (2926 respondents), and graduates of 1993 surveyed 3 years after qualification (2541 respondents). Results Almost 70% of the 1996 qualifiers felt that they worked excessive hours and 80% felt that they undertook too many routine non-clinical duties. Only 24% agreed that their postgraduate training was of a high standard and 22% felt they were being asked to perform clinical tasks with inadequate training. A total of 70% were dissatisfied with arrangements for cover for absent doctors. Senior doctors and nurses were regarded as supportive by most respondents, but hospital management was not. Although 65% were satisfied with their future prospects, only 36% had been able to obtain useful careers advice. Job enjoyment was reasonably high, with two-thirds scoring 6 or more on a scale from 1 (not enjoying at all) to 10 (greatly enjoying), but 70% of respondents felt that they had insufficient time for family and social activities. A briefer questionnaire sent to the 1993 qualifiers in 1996 showed similar results. Conclusions More needs to be done to ensure that junior doctors are trained appropriately for the tasks they undertake, to ensure that they regard their training highly, to reduce excessive non-clinical work, and to provide reasonable working hours and cover.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available