Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30928942›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2019

Health informatics competencies in postgraduate medical education and training in the UK: a mixed methods study.

Lydia Jidkov, Matthew Alexander, Pippa Bark, John G Williams, Jonathan Kay, Paul Taylor, Harry Hemingway, Amitava Banerjee

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Lydia JidkovInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Matthew AlexanderRoyal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Pippa BarkInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
John G WilliamsSchool of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Jonathan KayHealth Informatics Unit, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
Paul TaylorInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Harry HemingwayInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2279-0624
Amitava BanerjeeInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8741-3411

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess health informatics (HI) training in UK postgraduate medical education, across all specialties, against international standards in the context of UK digital health initiatives (eg, Health Data Research UK, National Health Service Digital Academy and Global Digital Exemplars).

designA mixed methods study of UK postgraduate clinician training curricula (71 specialties) against international HI standards: scoping review, curricular content analysis and expert consultation. SETTING AND

participantsA scoping literature review (PubMed until March 2017) informed development of a contemporary framework of HI competency domains for doctors. National training curricula for 71 postgraduate medical specialties were obtained from the UK General Medical Council and were analysed. Seven UK HI experts were consulted regarding findings. OUTCOMES: The International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) Recommendations for Biomedical and Health Informatics Education were used to develop a framework of competency domains. The number (maximum 50) of HI competency domains included in each of the 71 UK postgraduate medical specialties was investigated. After expert review, a universal HI competency framework was proposed.

resultsA framework of 50 HI competency domains was developed using 21 curricula from a scoping review, curricular content analysis and expert consultation. All 71 UK postgraduate medical curricula documents were mapped across 29 of 50 framework domains; that is, 21 domains were unrepresented. Curricula mapped between 0 (child and adolescent psychiatry and core surgical training) and 16 (chemical pathology and paediatric and perinatal pathology) of the 50 domains (median=7). Expert consultation found that HI competencies should be universal and integrated with existing competencies for UK clinicians and were under-represented in current curricula. Additional universal HI competencies were identified, including information governance and security and secondary use of data.

conclusionsPostgraduate medical education in the UK neglects HI competencies set out by international standards. Key HI competencies need to be urgently integrated into training curricula to prepare doctors for work in increasingly digitised healthcare environments.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, GraduateClinical CompetenceCurriculumExpert TestimonyHumansInformation ManagementInformation TechnologyInservice TrainingMedical InformaticsUnited Kingdomhealth informaticsinformation managementinformation technology

Identifiers

PMID30928942
PMCPMC6475211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.