Foundation year doctors need better supervision with some being asked to practise beyond their level of competence, a review finds.
Medical Education England’s evaluation of the Foundation Programme warns that it’s compromising patient safety.
While it calls on trainees to “step up” in their level of responsibility as they move from F1 to F2, it says this must be undertaken under appropriate supervision.
It suggests that supervision deteriorates in specialties with a large number of foundation placements and recommends that some of these placements should be reviewed.
Professor John Collins, review chair and visiting professor at the University of Oxford, said: “In meetings with trainees across England, the evaluation panel heard the repeated theme of some trainees being asked to practise beyond their level of competence and without adequate supervision.
“This places patients at unnecessary risk and gives the trainee the message that suboptimal care is condoned, neither of which is part of the professional values and aspirations of a good doctor.”
The review says that a lack of understanding about the role and the level of competence of F1 and F2 doctors could be contributing to their deployment in inappropriate roles beyond their level of competence.
In addition, the review acknowledges that the assessment of foundation doctors is considered to be excessive, onerous and not valued.
It describes the number of assessments required as “formidable” with a total of 249,564 clinical assessments being performed between August 2008 and August 2009 in 24 foundation schools, and 193,338 multi-source feedback appraisals undertaken on about 14,500 trainees.
The review also describes the large number of medical graduates who continue to apply for oversubscribed specialties as “a major issue which must be addressed”. It wants best practice in the provision of careers information and advice to be defined, and key workforce data collated to help trainees to make “early and wise decisions” regarding their long-term careers.
It makes 33 recommendations and the principal findings are supported by similar evidence from the 2009 PMETB Survey of Foundation Doctors, reports from Lord Patel and Professor Sir John Temple and the recently released GMC National Training Surveys 2010.
The Foundation Programme was implemented in 2005 as part of a substantial restructuring of medical education. The current evaluation follows the Tooke Report, which proposed in 2008 that “the structure of postgraduate training should be modified to provide a broad based platform for subsequent higher specialist training, increased flexibility, the valuing of experience and the promotion of excellence”.
On the positive side, MEE’s review believes the length of the programme should remain two years and says it successfully provides a critical interface between medical school and medical practice.
Health secretary Andrew Lansley called for a quick response to the recommendations. He said: “I have asked Medical Education England to work with the profession, the service and medical royal colleges to take forward the recommendations as swiftly as possible.
“This will fit with MEE’s ongoing work to improve the quality of training, ensuring that trainees have appropriate supervision and are not undertaking tasks for which they are not yet competent.”
Dr Tom Dolphin, co-chair of the BMA’s junior doctors committee, said: “We need to address the system failures that allow newly qualified doctors to be put in a position where they are working beyond their level of training. It is incredibly stressful for doctors to be put in this position and it will inevitably threaten patient safety.
“Where this is happening, employers need to be accountable for the systems in place to support juniors in clinical decision-making, and this must include juniors being withdrawn from a department if those systems are inadequate. We also need to urgently investigate problems with the selection of doctors into the programme, the length of work placements and the excessive levels of assessment.”
Niall Dickson, chief executive of the GMC, commented: “We support Professor Collins’s conclusion that the Foundation Programme has many strengths and that, while some changes are needed to improve its effectiveness, they should be approached in a spirit of evolution, not revolution. The GMC will now address the recommendations about the regulation of the Foundation Programme, some of which already form part of our new education strategy, including defining the outcomes required to complete the Foundation Programme and evaluating the case for student registration.
“The report confirms evidence from our own quality assurance activity that some foundation trainees are not being adequately supervised and supported, pressuring them to act beyond their competence with obvious risks for patients. We will continue to act where we become of aware of this, but it is important that NHS organisations deploy foundation doctors appropriately.”
Read the full report.