Cargando…

Survey of junior doctors' perspective of serious incident reviews

AIMS: Serious incidents according to NHS England (2015) are incidents where the consequences to patients, families and carers, staff or organisations are so significant or potential for learning are so great that a heightened response is justified. There is anectoctal evidence that this process is p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Popoola, Olusegun, Naidoo, Kuben, Shetty, Amrith
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8770089/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.424
_version_ 1784635289854017536
author Popoola, Olusegun
Naidoo, Kuben
Shetty, Amrith
author_facet Popoola, Olusegun
Naidoo, Kuben
Shetty, Amrith
author_sort Popoola, Olusegun
collection PubMed
description AIMS: Serious incidents according to NHS England (2015) are incidents where the consequences to patients, families and carers, staff or organisations are so significant or potential for learning are so great that a heightened response is justified. There is anectoctal evidence that this process is potentially difficult for junior doctors and the primary purpose of learning may be lost due to the stress involved. Our aim was to evaluate junior doctors perspective of serious incident reviews. A secondary aim was to organise local and regional workshops based on the outcome of our findings to address misconceptions around serious incident investigations. METHOD: A survey was developed using survey monkey and distributed to all trainees across the Mersey region through the Medical Education teams. The junior doctors range from core trainees to higher trainees. The survey encouraged the use of free texting if necessary. Results from the survey were then analysed RESULT: 18 junior doctors across the 3 mental health Trusts in the Mersey region responded. 12 respondents have been involved in a serious incident investigation in the past and 9 of the respondents stated that they did not recieve any support during the process. Out of the 3 that were supported, one rated the support as poor and frightening. 55.56% af all respondents found the process of serious incident reviews hard to understand. 66% of all respondents admitted that they are aware that the purpose of the review is for learning purposes. 100% of respondents agreed that a workshop to discuss the purpose and process of serious incidents investigation to aid their understanding would be useful. CONCLUSION: From the survey, we concluded that junior doctors do have some understanding of incident reviews process but they still do not feel comfortable with the idea of being under ‘investigation'. It is also important that formal support is made available during the process. We organised a workshop in one of the 3 Trusts which was well attended and junior doctors asked if they could sit on review panels for experiential learning. This is to be presented to govenance teams across the mental health trusts in the region. Further workshop across the 2 remaining Trusts could not be organised due to COVID-19 pandemic.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8770089
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87700892022-01-31 Survey of junior doctors' perspective of serious incident reviews Popoola, Olusegun Naidoo, Kuben Shetty, Amrith BJPsych Open Education and Training AIMS: Serious incidents according to NHS England (2015) are incidents where the consequences to patients, families and carers, staff or organisations are so significant or potential for learning are so great that a heightened response is justified. There is anectoctal evidence that this process is potentially difficult for junior doctors and the primary purpose of learning may be lost due to the stress involved. Our aim was to evaluate junior doctors perspective of serious incident reviews. A secondary aim was to organise local and regional workshops based on the outcome of our findings to address misconceptions around serious incident investigations. METHOD: A survey was developed using survey monkey and distributed to all trainees across the Mersey region through the Medical Education teams. The junior doctors range from core trainees to higher trainees. The survey encouraged the use of free texting if necessary. Results from the survey were then analysed RESULT: 18 junior doctors across the 3 mental health Trusts in the Mersey region responded. 12 respondents have been involved in a serious incident investigation in the past and 9 of the respondents stated that they did not recieve any support during the process. Out of the 3 that were supported, one rated the support as poor and frightening. 55.56% af all respondents found the process of serious incident reviews hard to understand. 66% of all respondents admitted that they are aware that the purpose of the review is for learning purposes. 100% of respondents agreed that a workshop to discuss the purpose and process of serious incidents investigation to aid their understanding would be useful. CONCLUSION: From the survey, we concluded that junior doctors do have some understanding of incident reviews process but they still do not feel comfortable with the idea of being under ‘investigation'. It is also important that formal support is made available during the process. We organised a workshop in one of the 3 Trusts which was well attended and junior doctors asked if they could sit on review panels for experiential learning. This is to be presented to govenance teams across the mental health trusts in the region. Further workshop across the 2 remaining Trusts could not be organised due to COVID-19 pandemic. Cambridge University Press 2021-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8770089/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.424 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Education and Training
Popoola, Olusegun
Naidoo, Kuben
Shetty, Amrith
Survey of junior doctors' perspective of serious incident reviews
title Survey of junior doctors' perspective of serious incident reviews
title_full Survey of junior doctors' perspective of serious incident reviews
title_fullStr Survey of junior doctors' perspective of serious incident reviews
title_full_unstemmed Survey of junior doctors' perspective of serious incident reviews
title_short Survey of junior doctors' perspective of serious incident reviews
title_sort survey of junior doctors' perspective of serious incident reviews
topic Education and Training
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8770089/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.424
work_keys_str_mv AT popoolaolusegun surveyofjuniordoctorsperspectiveofseriousincidentreviews
AT naidookuben surveyofjuniordoctorsperspectiveofseriousincidentreviews
AT shettyamrith surveyofjuniordoctorsperspectiveofseriousincidentreviews