The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Specialty Advisory Committee (CAPSAC) specifies that all child psychiatry specialist registrar training schemes must have a formal academic programme (Royal College of Psychiatrists Higher Specialist Training Committee, 1999). Training in child and adolescent psychiatry has been examined periodically (Reference Garralda, Wieselberg and MrazekGarralda et al, 1983; Reference Bools and CottrellBools & Cottrell, 1990; Reference Smart and CottrellSmart & Cottrell, 2000), but no previous comprehensive survey of academic programmes in terms of content and delivery has been published to date.

Academic programmes are usually organised by a local coordinator and are supposed to ‘encourage self-directed learning as preparation for lifelong learning’and ‘support the practical clinical training’ (Royal College of Psychiatrists Higher Specialist Training Committee, 1999). It is recommended that ‘the academic programme is formally evaluated’and that ‘the results of such evaluation should be used to inform the future development of the programme’ (Royal College of Psychiatrists Higher Specialist Training Committee, 1999). As there is currently no formal national curriculum, there exists the potential for broad variations in academic training, and we therefore sought to obtain a national picture of academic programmes from the perspective of both trainees and coordinators.

Method

Two similar questionnaires for trainees and coordinators were designed by consulting the CAPSAC advisory papers and the Higher Specialist Training Handbook, which refer to skill acquisition as well as theoretical knowledge (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1998; Royal College of Psychiatrists Higher Specialist Training Committee, 1999). Advice regarding the structure of the questionnaires was sought from the local research and development department and the local research ethics committee was approached. The questionnaires were piloted on a small sample of specialist registrars and modified following feedback. Questionnaires were confidential but not anonymous. Both questionnaires covered demographics and programme arrangement, organisation, structure and content, as well as views on quality and satisfaction. Questions took the form of yes/no responses, questions with comment boxes, and five-point Likert scales rating strength of agreement to a range of statements. In the questionnaire we acknowledged that there is no expectation for the programme to comprehensively cover all areas of training. However, we were interested to explore trainees’ views of how their academic programme contributed to the various learning objectives listed. The coordinators’ questionnaire also sought information on the content of the local programme.

Liaison and discussion between the authors and CAPSAC took place throughout the design process in order to meet the College requirements for release of its list of specialist registrars and training programme directors in the UK and Ireland. However, this survey is independent of CAPSAC and the methodology and opinions are those of the authors. Given the high turnover of specialist registrars and the option of anonymity in the College records, the authors did not assume that the College list was comprehensive. It was also clear, from the authors’ local knowledge, that the list was inaccurate. Therefore, all training programme directors were contacted in order to obtain a list of specialist registrars currently on each scheme and to identify the local academic programme coordinator.

The questionnaires were sent to a total of 253 specialist registrars and 19 academic programme coordinators in child and adolescent psychiatry in August 2003. A targeted second mailing was carried out 6 weeks later. The results were analysed using descriptive statistics.

Results

There were 152 trainee respondents, giving a response rate of 60%. Of these respondents, 72% were female and 34% were flexible trainees. Seventeen coordinators (90%) responded. Qualitative and quantitative data were generated. Quantitative results are summarised in Tables 1 and 2. To simplify the analysis, results from the Likert scales were amalgamated into three groups: agreement, disagreement and neither.

Table 1. Summary of responses

	n	%	Mean	Range
Respondent details
Coordinator returns	17	90
Trainee returns	152	60
Trainee age, years			35	28-49
Proportion of flexible trainees		34
Trainees per scheme			11	4-21
Current attenders		72
Coordinators on full-time contract	14	88
Coordinator sessions per week dedicated to programme			0.8	0-2
Coordinator meetings with trainees per year			11	2-30
Arrangement of programme
Sessions per year dedicated to programme			34	18-60
Trainees receiving copy of 3-year programme at start of rotation		60
Fixed location of programme		76
Teaching location away from clinical base		74
Protected time for trainee attendance		100
Trainees contributing to cost of programme		28
Trainees travelling more than 3 h		10
Trainees receiving recommended reading list		78
Coordinator training
Formal training received		29
Consultation with other coordinators		71
Feedback
Feedback invited		85
Feedback via evaluation forms		59
‘ The trainees are enthusiastic’ (coordinator view)		94
‘ The trainees prepare adequately’ (coordinator view)		82
Coordinators reporting generally positive feedback		71
Trainee satisfaction
Location		76
Travel time		87
Funding		90
Venue		93
Amount of preparation ‘excessive’		20
Amount of preparation ‘too little’		11
Adequate advance warning of necessary preparation		65
Trainees’ overall impression of programme (scale 0-10)			6.4	0-9.5

Table 2. Training, opportunities and teaching styles provided by the academic programme

	Trainees %	APCs %
Trainees and coordinators who agreed that the following professional competencies were contributed to by the programme1
Capacity for lifelong learning	66	94
Description and application of the main findings from research	66	100
Appraisal of research and awareness of process of research	54	88
Expertise in child development and developmental psychopathology	68	88
Ability to apply multiple perspectives to cases	80	88
Integration of clinical skills that enhances the management of complex cases	66	88
Introduction to basic psychotherapeutic theories	76	94
Containment and management of anxiety in colleagues	35	53
Provision of clinical leadership	28	59
Skills of an autonomous specialist	46	71
Ability to exercise managerial authority	22	41
Opportunities that trainees and coordinators agreed were provided by the programme2
Development of academic knowledge	90	94
Peer support	92	100
Networking with peers	96	94
Improvement of local knowledge	64	82
Development of presentation skills	72	88
Trainees and coordinators who agreed that the following teaching styles were used2
Lecture	84	82
Small group seminar	88	100
Problem-based learning	60	59
Journal appraisal	79	94
Case presentation	84	100
Trainee's topics of interest	67	88
Video consultation	20	53
Trainee-led teaching	72	94

Discussion

Our study required detailed planning in order to meet the criteria for the release of the College membership list. Once released, it was clear from the authors’ local knowledge that the list was inaccurate. Direct queries to all schemes through training programme directors resulted in a lengthy process that delayed data collection. Nevertheless, the receipt of responses from all schemes and the overall 60% response rate showed that this was a representative sample. Gender distribution resembled that of the study population.

The appointment of academic programme coordinators is unsystematic. Specialist registrars are often not involved in the appointment process. The authors were concerned that only 35% of coordinators reported closely following the Higher Specialist Training Handbook and CAPSAC advisory papers in the design of the programme. Moreover, only 29% of coordinators received formal training in coordinating academic programmes. Currently the most that is provided is a hand-over from the previous incumbent or guidance from a training committee. Occasionally coordinators seek out their counterparts on other schemes and compare notes. There remain coordinators who have no protected time to prepare the academic programme. The CAPSAC could take a more proactive stance by standardising the arrangements for appointment, induction and training of coordinators, and specialist registrars could be involved in the process of appointment, perhaps as part of a training committee. Furthermore, CAPSAC could put pressure on trusts to release coordinators from clinical commitments in order to prepare.

Table 2 demonstrates a marked disparity between coordinators’ perceptions and trainees’ experience of academic programmes. The coordinators had a more positive view of the training provided. This difference in opinion is most noticeable in the area of appraisal and application of research. This is of concern, given the current climate of clinical governance. This may relate to the mixed response across schemes regarding the usefulness and clinical relevance of journal appraisal. Training committees could recommend clinically relevant, high-quality journal articles.

There was wide variation between schemes in both organisation and content. Schemes covering large geographical areas, with little academic support and few trainees, struggle to achieve the quality and trainee satisfaction of those based in larger cities. This inequity is particularly noticeable in research and medico-legal practice where trainees depend on local resources. The variation in the contribution to individual professional competencies (22-80%, Table 2) reflects the heterogeneity of programmes. This is not surprising, given that there is no standardised curriculum. The authors suggested that CAPSAC could usefully facilitate liaison between coordinators in order to exchange ideas about good practice and local solutions, in the absence of an agreed national curriculum. A useful method might be an e-mail discussion forum.

A major cause of trainee dissatisfaction was the burden of preparation. This appears to pose particular problems in smaller schemes. Coordinators held the view that reading material is circulated well in advance; however, 35% of trainees felt that advance warning was inadequate and 31% that the amount of preparation was unsatisfactory. This suggests a failure of feedback and communication. It could be assisted by adequate administrative organisation and support. When trainees are expected to take a lead in teaching (e.g. journal appraisal), timetabled protected time as well as discussion in supervision could be provided in order to prepare. Through a channel such as a training committee, the issues of adequate advance warning could be raised and mechanisms for circulation of papers could be agreed and implemented.

Trainees appeared to appreciate having some influence in the organisation of the programme, but highest satisfaction was associated with support from an interested and active coordinator who regularly consulted trainees. Trainees who were expected to do the bulk of the organisation themselves found this burdensome in the absence of coordinator input. The coordinators reported higher levels of satisfaction with enthusiastic and motivated trainees.

Although current methods are well intentioned, locally creative and energetic, they are random and lack central coordination. There is no real financial resource, little release from clinical workload and meagre administrative support. The authors recommend a more universal adoption of training committees to include representation from training programme directors, academic programme coordinators and trainees. The training committee would have specific roles regarding the academic programme, including an organisational and planning role. It would also ensure that feedback was directly used to inform the evolution of the programme. Most importantly, it would enable the creation of a culture of collaboration and joint ownership of the academic programme that would direct the current arrangements to produce a more coordinated, protected and rewarding training experience. The CAPSAC could facilitate exchange of good practice between schemes, standardise the appointment and training of coordinators, and place pressure on trusts to release coordinators from clinical commitments to allow them more time for the academic programme.

Declaration of interest

None.