ArticleFuture healthcare journal2017
Trials and tribulations of the annual review of competence progression - lessons learned from core medical training in London.
Article in Future healthcare journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Supporting the transition to becoming a medical registrar.Future healthcare journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The annual review of competence progression (ARCP) was introduced as a way of keeping records and reviewing satisfactory progress through a medical curriculum for doctors in training. It provides public assurance that doctors are trained to a satisfactory standard and are fit for purpose. A routine external review of the core medical training (CMT) ARCPs in London revealed documentation of satisfactory progression of trainees to the next level of training without the evidence to support their completion of the curriculum. An internal review and series of process interventions were subsequently conducted and implemented to improve the quality and standardisation of the ARCPs. This paper reviews these interventions, discusses the lessons learned from the internal review and highlights issues applicable to any ARCP process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.