4.5 Article

The effect of an extended hospital induction on perceived confidence and assessed clinical skills of newly qualified pre-registration house officers

期刊

MEDICAL EDUCATION
卷 38, 期 9, 页码 998-1001

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01908.x

关键词

education, medical, undergraduate, standards; medical staff, hospitals, standards; clinical competence, standards; curriculum; Great Britain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Recent studies raise concerns over the preparedness of newly qualified doctors for the role of the pre-registration house officer (PRHO). This study aimed to assess self-perception of preparedness, objective assessment of core clinical skills and the effect of an extended clinical induction programme prior to commencing full duties. METHODS A group of 26 newly qualified doctors from 1 district general hospital underwent an extended 5-day, ward-based induction programme. The participants completed questionnaires on their own perceptions of their preparedness for PRHO duties and underwent an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) of 4 core clinical skills prior to induction, on completion of induction and 1 month into working life. RESULTS At the outset PRHOs had low perceptions of their own capabilities in all clinical scenarios and skills. Most perceptions improved after induction, although in 2 clinical areas they felt even less confident. One month into post there were significant improvements in all areas. Only 1 PRHO passed all 4 clinical skills assessments at the pre-induction assessment. Seven (26%) failed on 1 or more skills at the post-induction assessment. However, all participants were deemed competent in all skills at the 1-month assessment. CONCLUSION Newly qualified doctors do not feel prepared for PRHO duties and objectively are not competent in basic clinical skills. An extended induction improves preparedness in some but not all clinical areas and improves performance of objectively assessed clinical skills.

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

4.5
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