ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1998
Self-assessment of clinical competence by general practitioner trainees before and after a six-month psychiatric placement.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The new Foundation Programme Mental Health Curriculum: foundation doctors' perceptions of its importance and their competency: pre-post psychiatric placement evaluation study.BJPsych bulletin · 2025Article
- Experiences of French medical students during their clerkship in adolescent psychiatry: a qualitative study.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2023Article
- [Primary care and food disorders: what can we do? (II)].Atencion primaria · 2003Article
- Patients with eating disorders. How well are family physicians managing them?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) are responsible for managing the majority of mental health problems. There is evidence that the recognition and management of mental disorders could be improved. Vocational training schemes including a placement in psychiatry should be a prime opportunity to develop the requisite skills.
aimTo determine whether GP trainees thought that a six-month psychiatric placement had improved their clinical competence.
methodQuestionnaires were sent to 18 junior doctors in the south-west region entering a senior house officer placement in psychiatry. Trainees rated their perceived competency in 20 skill areas at the beginning and at the end of six months. Comparisons between matched trainees were made using ranking techniques.
resultsThere was a statistically significant improvement (P < 0.05) in perceived efficacy for matched trainees in 19 of the 20 areas of clinical competency appraised. The exception was in the confidence to identify different types of eating disorders. On completion of training, ability to diagnose depression, take a psychiatric history, and examine mental state were ranked most highly. However, skill levels in dealing with problems such as prescribing in acute psychosis and managing psychiatric emergencies were generally ranked above those dealing with neurotic and psychological problems. Most trainees indicated a favourable impression of their training experience.
conclusionsClinical competency appeared to improve in all but one of the areas appraised. However, skills were ranked more highly in dealing with hospital-based problems than those likely to be encountered in primary care. This may have implications for the focus of psychiatric training currently received.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9800395PMC1313130What 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.