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

This article was migrated. The article was not marked as recommended. Background: The UK General Medical Council (GMC) now requires that trainers in specified roles be "recognised" by evidencing training (General Medical Council, 2012), with wide variation across the UK in implementation. This study aimed to understand the impact on established local educators of this mandatory requirement but also to investigate how our faculty development programme (the Clinical Educator Programme - CEP) can optimise this process for future trainers. Literature review found little published work on the Framework Standards used for this process. Methods: From a pragmatic stance, case study methodology was used allowing for mixed methods of data collection (online survey and focus groups) and "insider research" (Unluer, 2012). Consultants holding a named role (n=875) as defined by the GMC (2012, p.15) were sampled. Results: Of the28% who responded, the majority (83.3%) were clinical supervisors (n=204). 77.6% were registered on the Faculty Development Programme (CEP, n=190), most stating they registered because of Recognition of Trainers (RoT) (n=107). Demonstrable differences were found between CEP participants and others and between those registered for personal developmental reasons when compared to those who gave RoT as their only reason. This included potential benefits and risks of the process. Ten themes emerged including "a necessary evil". Support for CEP contributing to a community of practice (Lave &amp; Wenger, 1991) was found. Mandatory requirements should not detract from professionalization of medical education, yet this study found just over half of respondents were supportive of the implemented process (51.8%). Conclusion: Further support is needed to help clinical educators understand the potential benefits of on-going educational CPD.

So much more than a necessary evil? Lessons from a study following the implementation of recognition of trainers