ArticleBMC medical education2023
The impact of Longitudinal Integrated Foundation Training: preliminary experiences in the United Kingdom.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe United Kingdom health system is challenged with retaining doctors entering specialty training directly after their second foundation year. Improving doctors' training experience during the foundation programme may aid such retention. The Longitudinal Integrated Foundation Training (LIFT) pilot scheme aimed to provide a programme that improves the quality of their foundation training experience, advance patient-centred care and provide doctors with more experience in the primary care settings.
methodsDuring this pilot study, three methods were employed to evaluate and compare doctors' experiences across their 2-year foundation training programme: Horus ePortfolio assessment of six domains for good medical practice analysed using a T-test, online survey assessments analysed using a 2-tailed chi-square test, and focus group feedback sessions with thematic analysis.
resultsDoctors completing LIFT (n = 47) scored a higher but non-significant mean score on all six domains for good medical practice versus doctors completing traditional foundation training (n = 94). By the end of foundation training, 100% of LIFT doctors rated their understanding of how primary and secondary care work together as high versus 78.7% of traditional doctors (p < 0.05). Improvements in wellbeing were observed among LIFT doctors, along with a reduction in the proportion of doctors considering leaving medical training. A significantly greater number of LIFT doctors versus traditional doctors rated their compassion for patients as high (100% versus 86.8%; p < 0.05), intended to become general practitioners (23.1% versus 13.5%; p < 0.05) and rated the extent to which they felt well informed and able to consider a general practice career rather than a hospital career as high (91.7% versus 72.3%, respectively; p < 0.05). Some LIFT doctors felt they had reduced exposure to secondary care, received less on-call experience and considered working a half-day to be problematic; challenges ameliorated by the end of the 2-year foundation programme.
conclusionThe LIFT programme enhanced the quality of foundation training and improved doctors' experiences and competencies, generating valuable insights for the future of education and healthcare delivery. Applying the principles of LIFT to foundation training helps doctors to be more compassionate and patient-centred, leading to enhanced individualised patient care.
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.