The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated alternative methods to ensure the continuity of medical education. Our study explores the efficacy and acceptability of a digital continuous medical education initiative for medical residents during this challenging period.

From September to December 2020, 47 out of 60 enrolled trainee doctors participated in this innovative digital Continuous Medical Education (CME) approach. We utilized the Script Concordance Test to bolster clinical reasoning skills. Three simulation scenarios, namely Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS), Advanced Life Support (ALS), and European Paediatric Life Support (EPLS), were transformed into interactive online sessions via Zoom™. Participant feedback was also collected through a survey.

Consistent Script Concordance Testing (SCT) scores among participants indicated the effectiveness of the online training module. Feedback suggested a broad acceptance of this novel training approach. However, discrepancies observed between formative SCT scores, and summative Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQ) assessments highlighted areas for potential refinement.

Our findings showcase the resilience and adaptability of medical education amidst challenges like the global pandemic. The success of methodologies such as SCT, endorsed by prestigious bodies like the European Resuscitation Council and the American Heart Association, suggests their potential in preparing health care professionals for emergent situations. This research offers valuable insights for shaping future online CME strategies.

Factors influencing trainees’ decisions about choosing and remaining in higher training subspecialties have not been widely researched. We administered telephone questionnaires to higher specialist trainees in the north-east of England to ascertain what influences these decisions. Thematic analysis was employed to develop overall constructs.

Twenty-seven trainees were interviewed, resulting in six overall constructs. These were: supervisory experiences; perceived work–life balance; career prospects; training and working environments; interest in the chosen subspecialty; and previous experience within the chosen subspecialty. Most trainees interviewed felt they had made the right specialty choice.

This study demonstrates the particular importance of exposure to a specialty and perceptions of the supervisory experience in determining trainees’ choices of, and decisions to remain in, a particular psychiatric specialty. Factors highlighted in this study must inform training, recruitment and workforce planning in order to bolster the recruitment and retention of trainees into higher specialty training.

Twelve intellectual disability psychiatry trainee representatives and 13 training programme directors were surveyed to assess the current state of training, to establish what motivated specialty trainees to choose intellectual disability psychiatry, and to explore issues that might affect retention.

The combined survey response rate was 83%. All trainees had chosen intellectual disability psychiatry after experience in either their personal or working life. Overall, specialty trainees were satisfied with their training; the majority felt supported to meet training requirements. Trainee isolation was the main concern for current trainees.

Recruitment for specialty training in intellectual disability psychiatry is acknowledged to be a concern for workforce planning and could affect access to and quality of psychiatric care for people with intellectual disability. The results of this survey could be used as a guide to improve efforts to attract trainees. Acknowledging and reducing trainee isolation could improve trainee morale.