Recruitment to higher specialty training in anaesthesia in the UK during the COVID‐19 pandemic: a national survey

  1. J. Subramaniam
  2. F. Durrant
  3. S. Edwardson
  4. S. El‐Ghazali
  5. C. Holt
  6. R. McCrossan
  7. I. Pramanik
  8. D. J. N. Wong

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

There were more applications for higher specialty training posts in anaesthesia in the UK starting in August 2021 than in previous years, with approximately two‐thirds being unsuccessful. We surveyed applicants to investigate their experience of the recruitment process (response rate 536/1056; 51%). Approximately 61% of respondents were not offered ST3 posts (n = 326). We enquired about their career plans for the next 12–24 months. Most respondents (79%) intended to take up a post equivalent to a third year of core training or a clinical fellow post from August 2021. Other options considered included: pursuing work abroad (17%); embarking on career breaks (16%); taking up higher training posts in intensive care medicine (15%); and permanently leaving medicine (9%). Nine per cent of respondents also expressed plans to pursue training in another medical specialty. Some expressed an intention to pursue further education or research (10%). A large proportion (42%) expressed a lack of confidence in being able to achieve the training requirements to later apply for a higher training post. The majority reported not feeling confident in achieving specialist registration in anaesthesia in the future without a training number (75%), and noted disruption to their wider life plans from the impending time out of training (78%). Sentiment analysis of free‐text responses indicated generally negative sentiment about the recruitment process. Themes elicited included: feeling the recruitment process was unfair; burnout and negative impact on well‐being; difficulties in making life plans; and feeling undervalued and abandoned. These results suggest that junior anaesthetic doctors in the UK negatively perceived postgraduate training structures and changes to the postgraduate curriculum and experienced difficulties in securing higher training.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1111/anae.15660
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.03.21259616: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The strengths and limitations of this survey must be considered when interpreting its findings. The data represent a candid account from junior doctors affected by this year’s ST3 recruitment process and the survey was rapidly disseminated with minimal delay after the recruitment process ended, thus minimising recall bias. We obtained responses from across the UK, thus allowing for generalisability of our findings between regions. However, due to the need for rapid analysis we relied on algorithmically-assisted sentiment analysis to screen free-text responses for themes and topics, and while the method of sentiment analysis adopted provided a means of scoring responses according to a dictionary of words with ascribed polarities, this approach did result in text passages that still appeared generally negative to the human eye despite being scored positively by the algorithm. This survey has clearly highlighted perceived issues in the ST3 recruitment process 2021 that needs to be further addressed in order to guide future workforce planning and the delivery of training. Ideally, the highlighted discontent and frustration felt by some trainees will help relevant stakeholders better understand what would be of benefit going forward. Regardless of the decision an individual trainee has taken in light of the recruitment process, it is imperative that they are fully supported locally, regionally and nationally. Trainees have raised a lack of clear access to information regarding com...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.07.03.21259616v1 on medRxiv