Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:42:36.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The New 2022 Curriculum for Postgraduate Training in Psychiatry in the UK – Experiences of Trainees Within a London Deanery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Karolos Dionelis*
Affiliation:
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
Ioana Varvari
Affiliation:
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
Gopinath Ranjith
Affiliation:
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

The Royal College of Psychiatry introduced a new postgraduate training curriculum in August 2022. One of the main changes is the introduction of a new collaborative tool between supervisor and trainee, the placement-specific personal development plan (PSPDP). The aim of this project is to locally explore trainee's views and experiences with the PSPDP.

Methods

We explored the views and experiences of seven psychiatry trainees within the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust in a single 60-minute focus group, co-facilitated by two authors over Microsoft Teams. The participants were purposively identified to have started core and higher training under the new curricula and a snowballing approach was used to recruit them. The data were recorded, transcribed, and analysed in line with ethical guidelines. The analysis was done by using Clarke and Braun's approach to thematic analysis.

Results

Three overarching themes were identified:

  1. 1. Positives of using a collaborative tool with a psychiatric supervisor (PS),

  2. 2. Challenges in implementation and

  3. 3. Trainees’ perspectives on directions forward.

The most notable subtheme of theme one was the improved curricular alignment between learning opportunities, curriculum content, and assessment tools. As one participant mentioned: “When we were going through [the PSPDP], it definitely guided us, what we wanted to (…) get out of this placement in particular, and also the kind of workplace-based assessments needed.”. The time-effective and structured approach to learning, regular progress follow-up, as well as improved motivation to engage with the placement were further subthemes mentioned. Examples of subthemes emerging from theme two were lack of PS knowledge about the PSPDP, as well as lack of training and information for trainees. Participants commented that “supervisors really didn't know what they were supposed to do” and that “the information [shared during induction] was outdated”. One example of subthemes from theme three was the need for additional training both for trainees and PSs. As one participant mentioned: “Training is required for supervisors (…) and for us as well to get really used to the system. Because it's a good system if we know how to use it.”

Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge this is the first study exploring trainees’ views on the new PSPDP. Whilst trainees appreciated the potential benefits of working through the PSPDP together with their supervisor, significant challenges remained and may hinder its meaningful use. Our next steps are designing and running a hybrid questionnaire to gather views from a larger sample.

Type
Rapid-Fire Presentations
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.