“Should I stay or should I go now?” : A qualitative study of why UK doctors retire

Funding information Our thanks go to the University of Aberdeen Development Trust and the British Medical Association (Scotland) for funding this work. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our thanks to all those doctors who participated in the study. Our thanks also to the BMA (Scotland) for distributing the invitation to take part in the study to their members. No patients or any members of the public were involved in this study.Peer reviewedPostprintPostprin

What should we assess in practice?

Aim: This article reports on a PhD study and follow up work undertaken to review and develop a tool for assessment of practice. Background: The assessment of practice in nursing and midwifery education and, other health professions has been the source of concern, criticism and research for a number of years with the conclusion that it might not be possible to develop an assessment tool that could encompass all aspects of professional practice. Methods: A qualitative evaluation study was undertaken using the naturalistic method of inquiry. A combination of tools was used in order to collect the data and enable progressive focusing and cross checking of the findings. These included documentary analysis, a questionnaire and focus group and individual interviews. The data was collected from documents analysis, focus group interviews, individual interviews and questionnaires. Results: The results showed that the assessment tool in use at the time did not encompass all criteria assessors used and six areas were identified as those to include in any future tool. Conclusion: The six areas identified by subjects as those to include in any assessment tool were further developed with specific statements so that they could be used within a tool. Implications for nursing management and education: Within the changing nature of health care there is a need to review whether the tool used for assessing pre-registration education of nursing and midwifery students practice is ‘fit for purpose’

Shall I tell my mentor? Exploring the mentor-student relationship and its impact on students’ raising concerns on clinical placement

Aims To explore student nurses' and nurse mentors' perceptions and experiences of raising concerns on clinical placement and the influence (if any) of their relationship on this process. A secondary aim is to consider the above, from a regulatory perspective in light of current literature and policy developments. Background Raising concerns whilst on clinical placement has been shown to be challenging for student nurses internationally. Registered nurses in the UK (in this case called “nurse mentors”) facilitate learning and assessment in practice. However, limited research exists on the influence of the relationship between the nurse mentor and student nurse on the raising concerns process. Design A qualitative approach was used to undertake secondary thematic analysis of interview data. The primary data set was generated during a PhD study, focusing on the mentor–student dynamic and the possible influence of this relationship on students' raising concerns. Methods 30 individual semi‐structured interviews were subjected to concurrent and thematic analysis. Interviews were undertaken with student nurses (n = 16) and nurse mentors (n = 14) between April 2016–January 2018. The COREQ 32‐item checklist was used during the preparation of this article. Findings The following three interrelated analytical themes were generated from the data, “developing a mentor‐student relationship," “keeping your mentor sweet” and “the mentor role in the raising concerns process.” Conclusion Our analysis of participants' experiences and perceptions offers an original contribution to understanding the factors associated with student nurses raising concerns in practice. Student nurses and most mentors believed that students should be encouraged and supported to raise concerns, but students' decisions were strongly influenced by their perceptions of the immediate interpersonal and educational context. Similar barriers to raising concerns have been shown to exist regardless of geographical boundaries, therefore the findings of this study are nationally and internationally relevant

Reforming regulatory relationships: The impact of medical revalidation on doctors, employers, and the General Medical Council in the United Kingdom

No embargo required

Medical student views of and responses to expectations of professionalism

Funding this study is part of the corresponding author's (EAS) doctoral programme of research funded by the University of Aberdeen, and supervised by EH and JC. Acknowledgements we thank all the students who took part in this project, and Professor Rona Patey, the Director of the Institute of Education for Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, for her support of this project.Peer reviewedPostprin

Training students as interprofessional learning facilitators: An exploratory study highlighting the need to build confidence

Interprofessional learning (IPL) aims to equip students for future interprofessional and collaborative practice. Involving students as IPL facilitators is becoming increasingly commonplace as an attempt to catalyse the necessary transformation of our workforce needed to deliver truly integrated and person-centred care. Evidence in the literature highlights the key role of trained facilitators in reaching successful IPL outcomes. Some guidelines are available as to how we train staff facilitators, but little evidence is available that describes how to appropriately prepare student IPL facilitators. The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate whether student IPL facilitators felt that they were sufficiently prepared for their role. Data in the form of open-ended text-based responses from student facilitators (n = 9) were collated after an intervention where student facilitators had been given the role of supporting IPL. Data were analysed using principles of thematic analysis. Three main themes emerged: i) building confidence; ii) purpose of IPL; iii) learning moments. Student IPL facilitators who took part in this study felt that they were adequately prepared for their role. Findings show that preparing students for IPL facilitation has similar, yet unique, components compared to the training staff. In particular, this study highlighted a need for student facilitators to receive further preparation to help build their confidence. Involving students as IPL facilitators has great potential in staff and students joining forces to equip students for future interprofessional and collaborative practice that can deliver high-quality care

Classificatory multiplicity: intimate partner violence diagnosis in emergency department consultations

Aims and Objectives The aim of this research was to explore the naming, or classification, of physical assaults by a partner as ‘intimate partner violence’ during emergency department consultations. Background Research continues to evidence instances when intimate partner physical violence is ‘missed’ or unacknowledged during emergency department consultations. Methods Theoretically this research was approached through complexity theory and the sociology of diagnosis. Research design was an applied, descriptive and explanatory, multiple-method approach that combined: qualitative semi-structured interviews with service users (n=8) and emergency department practitioners (n=9), and qualitative and quantitative document analysis of emergency department health records (n=28). Results This study found that multiple classifications of intimate partner violence were mobilised during emergency department consultations and that these different versions of intimate partner violence held different diagnostic categories, processes, and consequences. Conclusion The construction of different versions of intimate partner violence in emergency department consultations could explain variance in people’s experiences and outcomes of consultations. The research found that the classificatory threshold for ‘intimate partner violence’ was too high. Strengthening systems of diagnosis (identification and intervention) so that all incidents of partner violence are named as ‘intimate partner violence’ will reduce the incidence of missed cases and afford earlier specialist intervention to reduce violence and limit its harms. Relevance to Clinical Practice This research found that identification of and response to intimate partner violence, even in contexts of severe physical violence, was contingent. By lowering the classificatory threshold so that all incidents of partner violence are named as ‘intimate partner violence’, practitioners could make a significant contribution to reducing missed intimate partner violence during consultations and improving health outcomes for this population. This research has relevance for practitioners in any setting where service-user report of intimate partner violence is possible.   SUMMARY BOX What does this paper contribute to wider global community? • Identification of and response to intimate partner violence, even in contexts of severe physical violence was found to be contingent. • Classification of intimate partner violence was connected to: legal duty to respond statutory frameworks of risk of harms; socio-cultural discourses about what counts as intimate partner violence; and health care practitioners’ perceptions of usual modes of disclosure. • Connecting all reports of partner perpetrated violence to intimate partner violence identification and intervention will reduce missed cases in health consultations and mobilise earlier intervention to reduce violence and limit its harms. • The sociology of diagnosis is a valuable conceptual tool for examining variance in identification and response for a wide range of determinants of health of concern for nurses and allied professions

Anatomical Society core regional anatomy syllabus for undergraduate medicine: the Delphi process

A modified Delphi method was employed to seek consensus when revising the UK and Ireland's core syllabus for regional anatomy in undergraduate medicine. A Delphi panel was constructed involving ‘expert’ (individuals with at least 5 years’ experience in teaching medical students anatomy at the level required for graduation). The panel (n = 39) was selected and nominated by members of Council and/or the Education Committee of the Anatomical Society and included a range of specialists including surgeons, radiologists and anatomists. The experts were asked in two stages to ‘accept’, ‘reject’ or ‘modify’ (first stage only) each learning outcome. A third stage, which was not part of the Delphi method, then allowed the original authors of the syllabus to make changes either to correct any anatomical errors or to make minor syntax changes. From the original syllabus of 182 learning outcomes, removing the neuroanatomy component (163), 23 learning outcomes (15%) remained unchanged, seven learning outcomes were removed and two new learning outcomes added. The remaining 133 learning outcomes were modified. All learning outcomes on the new core syllabus achieved over 90% acceptance by the panel