Constructing high-quality rest facilities to maximise performance and ensure patient safety

IntroductionJunior doctors are working in an increasingly overstretched National Health Service. In 2018, Kettering General Hospital (KGH) was awarded £60 800 of government funds to create high-quality rest facilities and improve junior doctor well-being.MethodsAn audit and survey in KGH identified the structural and functional improvements needed. From November 2019 to June 2020, £47 841.24 was spent on creating new rest facilities. On completion, a postaction review assessed how the changes impacted morale, well-being and quality of patient care.ResultsThe majority of doctors were happy with the new rest areas (60%), a majority felt that they would use the on-call room area (63%) and the renovation improved morale and well-being. There was an increased ability to take breaks. However, the majority of doctors are not exception-reporting missing breaks: 79% (2019), 74% (2020).Conclusions and ImplicationsThis report recommends the maintenance of increased staffing levels and rest facilities during the recovery phase of COVID-19. The remaining £12 958.76 should be directed at sustaining the quality of KGH rest facilities. Lastly, the rate of exception-reporting must be increased through improving awareness, exploring alternative methods and supporting the action when necessary. The continual investment into rest facilities ensures workforce well-being and translates into patient safety.

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of exception reporting at a district general hospital

Background/aims Exception reporting is a function by which junior doctors report when their work has varied from expected. This study analysed the reporting at the authors' hospital. Methods The authors analysed 204 reports submitted across 12 months to investigate the nature and pattern of the exception reports. Results The majority of reports (86%) were for ‘hours and rest’, 5% for education and 9% for both. On average doctors reported an additional 1.32 hours of work per report. The most common response was time off in lieu, but 13% of reports were never responded to. Qualitative analysis showed the most common reasons for reporting were ‘work outside of rostered hours’, ‘workload’ and ‘staffing issues’. Over 10% of the reports discussed an educational issue. Conclusions The data were not specific and there was fewer than one report per junior doctor in the period analysed. It is therefore unlikely that the reports submitted represent the additional work done by junior doctors at the hospital. Guardians should investigate local attitudes to exception reporting and educate both seniors and juniors on the importance of submitting accurate exception reports.

Induction shouldn't be painful: improving psychiatry local induction for junior doctors across the South West

AimsThe GMC recommends that organisations ensure learners have an induction in preparation for each placement. We aimed to ensure that high quality induction was being delivered in psychiatry posts across the whole of the Severn Deanery. This included multiple localities (Bristol, Bath, Swindon, Devizes, Weston-Super-Mare, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Taunton and Yeovil) across three NHS trusts.BackgroundInduction plays a vital role in preparing doctors for their new roles. Crucially, some doctors are not only new to the specific role and site, but also new to the specialty (for example, Foundation Doctors and GP Trainees). In Severn, each locality takes responsibility for providing Junior Doctors with a locality-specific induction; these occur four times per year. Previous feedback from trainees in Severn was poor; as demonstrated by informal feedback and the August 2018's GMC survey results, showing some localities ‘required improvement’.MethodPre- and post-intervention measurements were ascertained by written questionnaires for Foundation Doctors, GP Trainees and Core Trainees in Psychiatry. Baseline questionnaires were completed in August/September 2019. Five ‘Plan, Do, Study, Act’ Cycles were completed over the following eighteen months. Examples of the changes made included incorporating ‘missed’ topics (such as wellbeing, seclusion reviews and exception reporting) and specific information to on-call responsibilities, reducing replicated information, and touring clinical sites. These changes were coordinated via monthly meetings between Locality Trainee Leads (LTLs).ResultThere was an overall improvement in trainee's satisfaction with induction. Outcomes also included the development of an induction checklist specific to each locality and a ‘gold standard’ list for what local induction should involve. This is hopefully soon to be ratified by the Medical Education department and Severn Deanery.ConclusionHaving worked on this project for over 18 months, sustainability of change remains a crucial issue. In response to this, we have established several recommendations: the LTL job role needs to be revised to include updating the written induction handbook in each locality and delivering face-to-face induction. Outgoing and incoming LTLs will plan each induction together, at least 4 to 8 weeks before the start date. Support from Medical Education regarding attendees at each induction is to be put in place. Handbooks will be shared across localities, so that the ‘core’ information is consistent. Ongoing feedback will ensure that Junior Doctors continue to receive a high quality and relevant induction.

Watching the watchmen: an evaluation of educational supervision in a busy district general hospital

IntroductionEducational supervisors (ESs) play a critical role in the training of Foundation doctors. Many hospital trusts do not currently offer formal mechanisms to ensure the quality of supervision is at a high standard. Our Trust wanted to empower trainees to offer objective feedback on the quality of the supervisors.MethodsWe introduced a feedback form sent to all Foundation doctors at our Trust. The questionnaire was designed to identify whether ESs were meeting their responsibilities as defined by the Health Education England South West’s Severn Deanery. We collected data throughout the academic year 2017–2018 (Year 1) as a pilot, before rolling out the definitive questionnaire with minor modifications from 2018 to 2019 (Year 2).ResultsAll respondents met with their supervisor within the first month of the placement and 90.7% of the trainees found it easy to meet with their supervisor. The Trust received generally very good feedback for all of its supervisors. Low numbers (4/120 trainees) reported supervisors not engaging with the exception reporting process.ConclusionOur Trust provides ESs of a high standard. The authors believe collecting feedback for ESs will achieve three things: 1) Drive up standards through increasing accountability of ESs receiving objective feedback. This will be of critical importance in the context of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic and the changes to our work it has necessitated. 2) Empower trainees to make informed decisions about where they wish to train and under which supervisors. 3) Facilitate revalidation and appraisal for supervisors by collecting data from trainees on the quality of their supervision.