Cargando…

Understanding Trainees’ Current Likelihood of Raising Concerns

AIMS: Raising concerns is a duty for all doctors. However, a scoping exercise within a large mental health Trust demonstrated that trainees experience difficulties in raising both patient safety and training concerns. As part of a trainee-led quality improvement (QI) project within this Trust, our a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ibbett, Vicki, Padda, Manjinder, Thomas, Katie, Harsh, Rajendra, Davies, Sian, Mirza, Tabassum, Hubbard, Katherine, Gul, Ainy, Kulman, Khadija, Fatima, Marium, Shaw, Amy, Kulman, Ella, Saeed, Razan, Pantall, Shay-Anne, Scally, Ruth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10345628/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2023.288
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: Raising concerns is a duty for all doctors. However, a scoping exercise within a large mental health Trust demonstrated that trainees experience difficulties in raising both patient safety and training concerns. As part of a trainee-led quality improvement (QI) project within this Trust, our aim was to develop a pulse survey to capture the current likelihood of trainees raising concerns and factors influencing this. METHODS: An online survey was developed using ‘plan do study act’ (PDSA) methodology. The initial draft was informed by data from the Autumn 2021 scoping exercise. The survey was refined using a collaborative trainee-led approach. It was tested by trainees involved in the QI project followed by two other trainees and was revised accordingly. Trainees across all training grades were invited to complete the survey through various communication channels. The pulse survey will be repeated monthly with a two-week response window. RESULTS: Ten trainees out of 103 responded to the first pulse survey open from 18th to 31st January 2023 (response rate 9.7%). Seven respondents were core trainees and three were higher trainees. Respondents were more likely to raise patient safety concerns than training concerns (average score of 3.8 out of 5, where 5 equals ‘very likely’, versus 3.4 out of 5 respectively). Of the three respondents who had experienced a patient safety concern in the past 2 weeks, only two had used any existing process to raise it. These data were replicated for training concerns. No respondents were confident that effective action would be taken if they raised a training concern, while less than half of respondents were confident that effective action would be taken if it were a patient safety concern. The reasons for the low response rate are likely varied. However, there may be some similar underlying reasons for low engagement in surveys and low engagement in raising concerns. Given this, a more negative picture of trainees’ likelihood of raising concerns may have been portrayed if more trainees engaged in the survey. CONCLUSION: Engaging trainees to provide insight into their likelihood of raising concerns is challenging. Despite the low response rate, this initial pulse survey demonstrated that trainees continue to experience barriers to raising concerns. PDSA methodology will continue to be used to optimise the monthly pulse survey response rate. The key QI outcome measures will also be integrated into pre and post intervention surveys as a pragmatic approach to evaluate specific change ideas.