Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-29T22:15:34.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Postgraduate Teaching Programme in Psychiatry in North Wales- a Regional Quality Improvement Project 2022-2023

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Asha Dhandapani*
Affiliation:
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham, United Kingdom
Sathyan Soundararajan
Affiliation:
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham, United Kingdom
Catherine Baker
Affiliation:
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham, United Kingdom
Rajvinder Sambhi
Affiliation:
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

We aimed to arrange the local Postgraduate teaching in psychiatry as per the Deanery requirement/ HEIW requirement. We aim to achieve a better target with regard to local teaching as noted from the previous year's GMC trainee survey

Methods

The project started in 2019. 3 sets of audits and PDSA's were done- one each year, before the final PDSA. During these 3 audits, only non-consultants were participants.

During the 4th PDSA, in 2022-2023, a purposive sample was selected to provide the best information possible for the audit. It included Consultant Psychiatrists from all three sites in North Wales, Trainees( Junior/ Senior), SHO, speciality doctors, FY2, GP trainees and Clinical fellows. The criteria for participation were that the doctors should be working in Psychiatry and should have attended the local postgraduate programme. Access to the internet and appropriate device was mandatory as an add-on availability.

An online questionnaire was emailed to the participants. There were only 3 questions for the Consultants and 5 for the non Consultants’ group. 2 weeks window was offered to fill out the forms.

Results

The 3 audits done initially revealed that consistent formal teaching was not provided. The candidates also found the current programme not fulfilling the criteria laid by the deanery and that their educational needs were neglected. The summary of the old audits suggested that the teaching had worsened eventually.

The final PDSA was done in 2022-2023. The overall time to fill out the form was 1.43 minutes. An equal number of Consultants and Non-consultants filled out the form. 31 Consultants rated the new programme as 4.23 for 5. The 31 non-consultants rated the programme 3.68 out of 4 and 95% identified that the new postgraduate programme covered the core trainees' requirements as per the MRCPsych Handbook from the Deanery.

Conclusion

Prioritisation of the most important facilitators and identification of ‘easy wins’ are important steps in this process.

The purpose of this study was to develop a national expert group consensus amongst a range of relevant stakeholders; senior doctors, residents, patients, allied healthcare professionals and healthcare managers allowing us to;

  1. 1. identify important barriers and facilitators of learning in clinical environments and

  2. 2. indicate priority areas for improvement. Our overarching objective was to provide information to guide policymakers and those tasked with the delivery of graduate medical education in tackling the provision of high-quality clinical learning environments in challenging time

Type
Quality Improvement
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.