A qualitative study of the perceptions and experiences of Pre-Registration House Officers on teamwork and support.

Heidi Lempp, Mac Cochrane, John Rees
Author Information
  1. Heidi Lempp: Guy's, King's and St, Thomas' School of Medicine, King's College, London Sherman Education Centre, Guy's Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK. heidi.k.lempp@kcl.ac.uk

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Following the implementation of a new final Year 5 curriculum in one medical school we carried out a study to explore the experience of the transition from final student year to Pre-Registration House Officer (PRHO). This study looks at the experiences of two successive cohorts of PRHOs in relation to team work, support and shared responsibility in their transition from final year students to qualified doctors. The involvement of PRHOs in teams is likely to change in the development of Foundation programmes.
METHODS: A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews with 33 PRHOs, stratified by gender, ethnicity and maturity, from two study cohorts, qualifying in 2001 and 2002, from one medical school in the UK, in their first three months following medical graduation.
RESULTS: Most PRHOs reported positive experiences for their inclusion as a full member of their first ward teams. This contributed to their increasing confidence and competence in this early period of career transition. However, a number of organisational barriers were identified, e.g. incomplete teams, shift work, which produced problems in their integration for one third of newly qualified doctors.
CONCLUSION: Recently introduced policies, intended to improve the working lives of newly qualified doctors have produced both benefits and unintended adverse impacts on PRHOs. The changes of the new PRHO Foundation programme will have further impact. Foundation doctors may need to relate to wider teams with more interaction and less protection. Such changes will need to be managed carefully to protect the PRHO at a vulnerable time.

References

  1. Med Educ. 1997;31 Suppl 1:10-1 [PMID: 10664731]
  2. Med Educ. 1997;31 Suppl 1:57-60 [PMID: 10664742]
  3. Med Educ. 2000 Nov;34(11):921-7 [PMID: 11107017]
  4. Lancet. 2001 Mar 17;357(9259):867-70 [PMID: 11265967]
  5. Med Educ. 2002 Jan;36(1):5-6 [PMID: 11849517]
  6. Med Educ. 2002 Jan;36(1):35-44 [PMID: 11849522]
  7. Med Educ. 2002 Jan;36(1):56-65 [PMID: 11849525]
  8. Med Teach. 2002 Jan;24(1):9-12 [PMID: 12098450]
  9. Med Educ. 2002 Aug;36(8):718-27 [PMID: 12191054]
  10. Med Teach. 2003 Jan;25(1):67-76 [PMID: 14741862]
  11. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987 Aug 29;295(6597):533-6 [PMID: 3117213]
  12. BMJ. 1994 Oct 29;309(6962):1140-3 [PMID: 7987111]
  13. Med Educ. 1994 Sep;28(5):418-31 [PMID: 7845261]
  14. Postgrad Med J. 1995 May;71(835):273-7 [PMID: 7596930]
  15. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1997 Mar-Apr;31(2):162-7 [PMID: 9131515]

MeSH Term

Adult
Attitude of Health Personnel
Clinical Competence
Cohort Studies
Education, Medical, Undergraduate
Female
Hospitals, Public
Humans
Internship and Residency
Male
Organizational Culture
Organizational Policy
Patient Care Team
Program Evaluation
Social Responsibility
Social Support
Socioeconomic Factors
Students, Medical
Surveys and Questionnaires
United Kingdom