There is increased migration of patients and physicians worldwide. In Norway, psychiatry is the medical discipline with highest proportion of foreign doctors (24%). We need empirical studies on transcultural clinical challenges among doctors training in psychiatry.

What perceived clinical challenges do foreign and native Norwegian young doctors meet when they treat patients from another culture, and what independent factors are associated with such challenges?

We developed a new 6-item instrument (alpha=0.80), Clinical Transcultural Challenges (CTC), with items about assessing psychosis, risk of suicide, violence etc. The doctors were recruited at mandatory training courses, and they filled in questionnaires about individual factors (age, gender, foreign/native) and work-related factors (training stage, frequency of transcultural meetings, number of working hours, work stress). Associations with CTC were analyzed by linear multiple regression.

The response rate was 93% (216/233), of whom 83% were native and 17% were foreign doctors, 68% were women. Native doctors reported higher levels of CTC than did foreign doctors, 28.8 (6.2) vs 23.8 (7.2), p<0.001, d=0.73. Both native and foreign doctors rated “assessing psychosis” and “lack of helping tools” as most demanding. Independent factors associated with CTC were being a native doctor, Beta 3.9, p<0.01, and high levels of work-home stress, Beta 0.29, p<0.05.

Native doctors training in psychiatry report higher levels of transcultural clinical challenges than foreign doctors do. Both groups of doctors may need more training in transcultural assessment of psychotic disorders. They also report needs for more helping tools, and we should explore this further.

No significant relationships.

The outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic forced a change in the functioning of health care systems across the globe, requiring rapid adaptation to new conditions for the safe provision of services within all medical fields. General disruption has also affected the traditional program of a postgraduate training, which has been so far fixed with temporary solutions, but not given a proper evaluation in the times of big expectations and pressures from both patients and healthcare workers.

Outbreak of the COVID-19 put psychiatry trainees and Early Career Psychiatrists in an unprecedented position of responsibility for treatment of a variety of comorbidities they had no prior experience with due to closure of specialized hospital departments and limited access to regular diagnostic tools. In addition to changes in clinical practice and deployment to unfamiliar ground, rescheduling of different components of regular training, transferring most of the educational activities to distance learning, limiting professional growth by canceling most courses and conferences only strengthened the feeling of uncertainty caused by constant adjustments of the final examinations’ conditions.

The Speciality Training Section of the Polish Psychiatric Association decided to review changes forced by the COVID-19 outbreak in a traditional postgraduate training program in psychiatry.

Identified shortcomings pose questions about the necessity of a solid revision of the training in order to cope with more demanding working conditions.

Presented recommendations may be the starting point for a discussion on the programs’ evaluation across the entire region.

No significant relationships.

Growing professional exchange between Eastern and Western European countries increases the possibilities for international postgraduate training courses and by that satisfying the need for rapid and facilitation of travel and migration in the enlarged European Union increase achieving high standards. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a summer school program that trained young Eastern European psychiatrists and to assess the impact of the program on their professional development and future activities.

We evaluated the training effect of the first 3 years of the Berlin Summer School with respect to (1) the participants' satisfaction with the topics, quality and originality of the presentations, and (2) long-term effects and implications for their professional career. All participants (N = 43) filled out anonymously the evaluation form at the end of each summer school. An evaluation of long-term effects was carried out 2 years later with a questionnaire that was sent via e-mail to all former participants.

Participants were most satisfied with practical topics such as “how to prepare a paper”, “how to evaluate a paper”, or “how to participate in a congress.” The appreciation of the presented topics and the appreciation of courses increased in each consecutive summer school. All summer school participants reported that the course had some influence on their future career, and one fifth of the participants felt that their professional development was influenced “a lot”.

Although limited to 1 week of intensive training, a summer school program can have a longer lasting positive influence on the professional development of the participants. Participants felt that particularly the training of practical skills improved their research performance. Former participants founded an independent multicentric and multinational research group and supported national courses that were organized similar to the Berlin Summer School.

Faculty development initiatives to improve emergency department (ED) teaching are compromised by the paucity of information about what behaviours and characteristics are desirable in an emergency medicine (EM) teacher.

To design and evaluate a learner-centred, interactive faculty development workshop based on original ED teaching research.

Registrants for a university-based faculty development workshop on ED teaching completed a needs assessment and pre-workshop self-reflection exercise. Responses were grouped into 3 themes derived from the ambulatory teaching literature and a recent survey of expert clinical EM teachers and learners. Participants underwent a half-day workshop consisting of 1 large group interactive session and 3 small group sessions using role playing, practice reflection, real time review of hard copy resources, and brainstorming. Evaluation included a post-event ordinal scale questionnaire and a 4-month follow-up short answer survey, both measuring participants' perceptions of workshop effectiveness.

Fifteen faculty participated. The needs assessment identified “Common mistakes,” “Teaching efficiently” and “Dealing with the difficult learner” as themes. All 15 completed evaluations, rating the workshop as relevant (4.6/5), specific to their needs (4.4/5) and useful (4.5/5). At 4 months, 10 out of 10 respondents reported success at implementing new techniques and 8 reported greater confidence in teaching. The most common new techniques were: setting better learning objectives, giving better feedback, actively seeking teaching opportunities, and identifying a teaching point.

Learner-centred faculty development meets perceived needs of faculty and can result in participants trying new teaching strategies.