ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2026
UK Foundation Programme training needs a national minimum standard for advanced life support.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2026. 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.
- Cardiovascular disease: everybody's business.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since 2021, advanced life support (ALS) has no longer been a mandatory requirement of the UK Foundation Programme. Although the shift towards capability rather than certification was educationally defensible, in practice it has created marked national variation in how resuscitation preparedness is developed, evidenced and signed off. Foundation doctors now enter emergencies with unequal access to funded ALS training, simulation and supervised assessment, while supervisors are left to judge equivalence without a consistent national threshold. This matters not because patient-level harm has been neatly proven, but because high-stakes clinical capability should not depend on local opportunity or variable interpretation. A capability-based curriculum and a national minimum standard are not mutually exclusive. The Foundation Programme should therefore restore a national ALS requirement, or a formally recognised equivalent standard, alongside funded access, blended delivery and transparent national evaluation of uptake, exemptions and outcomes.
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.