ArticleFuture healthcare journal2020
The GMC national training survey: Does it have an impact?
Article in Future healthcare journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Training experience across UK medicine: deanery differences versus site variation-General Medical Council National Training Survey 2025 analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Utilising the General Medical Council survey as an incentive to improve training satisfaction in cardiology: A case study.Future healthcare journal · 2025Article
- Supervision, scheduling, satisfaction and shared working: how experiences of junior doctors relate to excess mortality within the NHS.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2023Article
- A national survey investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on core and higher breast radiology training in the UK.Clinical radiology · 2022Article
- Getting the basics right: delays in phlebotomy and intravenous cannulation: a survey of foundation year 1 doctors.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The General Medical Council (GMC) national trainee survey (NTS) monitors junior doctor training experience annually, which is then used by organisations such as Health Education England to inform quality management. Its validity as an assessment of the learning environment to drive improvement is frequently questioned; currently there are no published evidence-based studies to demonstrate its impact. To explore the effects of the GMC survey, we carried out a retrospective cohort study using publicly available GMC NTS survey data. We compared 2018 and 2019 scores in paediatrics in London across all 18 survey indicators, to identify any relationship between these 2 consecutive years of data. Our findings demonstrate that results of the GMC NTS in 1 year are associated with a change in the NTS the following year, with both an improvement in below average departments and deterioration in above average units. These findings suggest that annual GMC NTS results may have an impact on the quality of learning environments as measured in subsequent surveys - therefore they act as both a measure and a potential modifier of outcome.
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.