Search

Background The global rise in mental health issues calls for a strong psychiatry workforce. Yet, psychiatry training worldwide is facing recruitment challenges, causing unfilled consultant posts and possibly threatening the quality of patient care. An in-depth understanding of trainees’ progression through training is warranted to explore what happens to recruited trainees during training. Aims To uncover current trends in psychiatry trainees’ progression through training in the UK. Method This national retrospective cohort study with data from the UK Medical Education Database used discrete-time survival analysis to analyse training progression for those trainees who started their core psychiatry post in 2012–2017 (2820 trainees; 59.6% female, 67.6% UK graduates (UKGs)). The impact of sociodemographic characteristics on training progression were also investigated. Results The overall probability of completing training in 6 years (minimum years required to complete psychiatry training in the UK) was 17.2% (ranging from 4.8% for non-UKG females to 29% for UKG males). The probability to not progress was highest (57.1%) from core to specialty training. For UKGs, trainees from ethnicities other than White, trainees with a disability, and trainees who had experienced childhood social deprivation (measured as entitlement to free school meals) had a significantly (P ≤ 0.02) lower probability of completing training in 6 years. Conclusions Less than one in five psychiatry trainees are likely to complete training in 6 years and this probability varies across groups of doctors. Completing psychiatry training in 6 years is, therefore, the exception rather than the norm and this has important implications for trainees, those planning psychiatry workforces or responsible for psychiatry training.

Abstract Background Little research has compared the profile, success, or specialty destinations of graduates entering UK medical schools via accelerated, 4-yr, standard 5-yr and 6-yr programmes. Four research questions directed this investigation:-What are the success rates for graduates entering graduate-entry vs. undergraduate medicine courses?How does the sociodemographic and educational profile differ between these two groups?Is success – in medical school and foundation training – dependent on prior degree, demographic factors, or aptitude test performance at selection?What specialty do graduate entry medicine students subsequently enter? Methods The data from two cohorts of graduates entering medical school in 2007 and 2008 (n = 2761) in the UKMED (UK Medical Education Database) database were studied: 1445 taking 4-yr and 1150 taking 5-yr medicine courses, with smaller numbers following other programmes. Results Completion rates for degree programmes were high at 95%, with no significant difference between programme types. 4-yr entrants were older, less likely to be from Asian communities, had lower HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) tariff scores, but higher UKCAT (UK Clinical Aptitude Test) and GAMSAT (Graduate Medical School Admissions Test) scores, than 5-yr entrants. Higher GAMSAT scores, black or minority ethnicity (BME), and younger age were independent predictors of successful completion of medical school. Foundation Programme (FPAS) selection measures (EPM – educational performance measure; SJT – situational judgment test) were positively associated with female sex, but negatively with black or minority ethnicity. Higher aptitude test scores were associated with EPM and SJT, GAMSAT with EPM, UKCAT with SJT. Prior degree subject, class of degree, HESA tariff, and type of medicine programme were not related to success. Conclusions The type of medicine programme has little effect on graduate entrant completion, or EPM or SJT scores, despite differences in student profile. Aptitude test score has some predictive validity, as do sex, age and BME, but not prior degree subject or class. Further research is needed to disentangle the influences of BME.