How prepared are UK medical graduates for practice? A rapid review of the literature 2009-2014
BMJ Open, ISSN: 2044-6055, Vol: 7, Issue: 1, Page: e013656
2017
- 147Citations
- 396Captures
- 2Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations147
- Citation Indexes141
- 141
- CrossRef127
- Policy Citations6
- Policy Citation6
- Captures396
- Readers396
- 396
- Mentions2
- Blog Mentions1
- Blog1
- News Mentions1
- News1
Most Recent News
Evaluating the Utility of a Near-Peer Situation-Based Course to Prepare Medical Students for the UK Foundation Programme: A Pilot Study
Introduction Embarking on the Foundation Programme is a challenge often met with apprehension, stress, and anxiety amongst medical students.1 Over the last few decades, a
Review Description
Objective To understand how prepared UK medical graduates are for practice and the effectiveness of workplace transition interventions. Design A rapid review of the literature (registration #CRD42013005305). Data sources Nine major databases (and key websites) were searched in two timeframes (July-September 2013; updated May-June 2014): CINAHL, Embase, Educational Resources Information Centre, Health Management Information Consortium, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Knowledge. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Primary research or studies reporting UK medical graduates' preparedness between 2009 and 2014: manuscripts in English; all study types; participants who are final-year medical students, medical graduates, clinical educators, patients or NHS employers and all outcome measures. Data extraction At time 1, three researchers screened manuscripts (for duplicates, exclusion/inclusion criteria and quality). Remaining 81 manuscripts were coded. At time 2, one researcher repeated the process for 2013-2014 (adding six manuscripts). Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis and mapped against Tomorrow's Doctors (2009) graduate outcomes. Results Most studies comprised junior doctors' self-reports (65/87, 75%), few defined preparedness and a programmatic approach was lacking. Six themes were highlighted: individual skills/knowledge, interactional competence, systemic/technological competence, personal preparedness, demographic factors and transitional interventions. Graduates appear prepared for history taking, physical examinations and some clinical skills, but unprepared for other aspects, including prescribing, clinical reasoning/diagnoses, emergency management, multidisciplinary team-working, handover, error/safety incidents, understanding ethical/legal issues and ward environment familiarity. Shadowing and induction smooth transition into practice, but there is a paucity of evidence around assistantship efficacy. Conclusions Educational interventions are needed to address areas of unpreparedness (eg, multidisciplinary team-working, prescribing and clinical reasoning). Future research in areas we are unsure about should adopt a programmatic and rigorous approach, with clear definitions of preparedness, multiple stakeholder perspectives along with multisite and longitudinal research designs to achieve a joined-up, systematic, approach to understanding future educational requirements for junior doctors.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85009759032&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013656; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28087554; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013656; https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013656; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/1/e013656
BMJ
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know