English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose  As an essential part of the health care system, the requirements for specialist training are subject to a continuous process of change. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the current specialist training situation of all departments in a tertiary care hospital in Germany. Differences between assistant and chief physicians should be pointed out.    Materials and methods  The analysis of the current training situation was carried out on the basis of an individually created questionnaire. The questionnaire content included career goal and specialism. The characteristic values initial training (IT), training structure (TS) and training content were measured on a numeric scale from 1 to 5. In addition, an overall assessment of the trainers’ competences was performed. The questionnaire was sent to 208 assistant physicians (AP) and 34 chief physicians (CP).    Results  Totally 92 APs (44.2%) and 22 CPs (64.7%) participated. Senior physician was the most common career goal (34.1%), followed by the branch (28.6%). The importance of the topics initial training (IT) and training structure (TS) were evaluated as mean value: IT CP =1.5, IT AP =1.6; p=0.701 and TS CP =1.4, TS AP =1.5; p=0.669. The results concerning the implementation of the topics IT and TS in the daily routine show significant differences between APs and CPs (IT CP =2.0, IT AP =3.2; p=0.002; TS CP =1.9, TS AP =3.0; p<0.001). Skills lab training was acknowledged as the most important training format (CP=1.3, AP=1.5; p=0.401). The practical medical skills of the professional trainers were evaluated as high: AP: 94.6% (CP: 100.0%), as well as the training in interprofessional collaboration: AP: 79.4% (CP: 100.0%).    Conclusion  Our data underline the importance of specialist training subjects. These are partly perceived very differently by APs and CPs. Innovative concepts for the induction phase, well-structured training curricula, providing management skills, the overall use of skills labs and digital documentation might support the satisfaction and the outcome of specialist training. This could also improve quality in patient care.

Training strategies for a sustainable medical care: a survey among assistant and chief physicians in a tertiary care hospital in Germany