4.6 Article

Does UK medical education provide doctors with sufficient skills and knowledge to manage patients with eating disorders safely?

期刊

POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 94, 期 1113, 页码 374-380

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2018-135658

关键词

eating disorders; primary care; psychiatry; paediatrics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundEating disorders affect 1%-4% of the population and they are associated with an increased rate of mortality and multimorbidity. Following the avoidable deaths of three people the parliamentary ombudsman called for a review of training for all junior doctors to improve patient safety.ObjectiveTo review the teaching and assessment relating to eating disorders at all levels of medical training in the UK.MethodWe surveyed all the UK medical schools about their curricula, teaching and examinations related to eating disorders in 2017. Furthermore, we reviewed curricula and requirements for annual progression (Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP)) for all relevant postgraduate training programmes, including foundation training, general practice and 33 specialties.Main outcome measuresInclusion of eating disorders in curricula, time dedicated to teaching, assessment methods and ARCP requirements.ResultsThe medical school response rate was 93%. The total number of hours spent on eating disorder teaching in medical schools is <2hours. Postgraduate training adds little more, with the exception of child and adolescent psychiatry. The majority of doctors are never assessed on their knowledge of eating disorders during their entire training, and only a few medical students and trainees have the opportunity to choose a specialist placement to develop their clinical skills.ConclusionsEating disorder teaching is minimal during the 10-16 years of undergraduate and postgraduate medical training in the UK. Given the risk of mortality and multimorbidity associated with these disorders, this needs to be urgently reviewed to improve patient safety.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据