Premium
Progression of junior doctors into higher specialist training
Author(s) -
Lambert T W,
J Goldacre M
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.776
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1365-2923
pISSN - 0308-0110
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02179.x
Subject(s) - training (meteorology) , medical education , medicine , general practice , specialist registrar , work (physics) , family medicine , engineering , mechanical engineering , physics , meteorology
Objectives To report on the transition of junior doctors into higher specialist training in the UK, following the Calman reforms and recent initiatives to promote training in general practice. Design and setting Postal questionnaire survey carried out in the UK. Participants All graduates of 1996 from UK medical schools were surveyed in 2002. Main outcome measures Outcome measures were considered to be details of applications, outcomes of applications, intentions to apply for specialist training, and career plans with regard to such issues as flexible training and work. Results Of 2312 responders, 39% had applied for specialist registrar (SpR) training and 35% for general practice (GP) training. Of applicants for SpR training, 68% were successful; 24% failed, almost all of whom intended to reapply, many after gaining research experience; 4% awaited a decision, and 4% had had another outcome (e.g. they withdrew their application). A sixth of responders intended to apply but had not yet done so. Of applicants for GP training, 95% had been successful. A further 2% intended to apply but had not yet done so. Responders viewed flexible and part‐time training and work opportunities, and information about available posts, as being more widely available in general practice than in hospital practice. Half of the responders did not agree that their postgraduate training had been of a high standard. Conclusions Progression into GP training seemed to have been a smoother and less protracted process than that into SpR training. Delayed applications for SpR training were common, and many of those who had applied had not been accepted. The use of research experience to strengthen a re‐application was common.