Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Future Healthcare Journal

  • FHJ Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About FHJ
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Future Healthcare Journal

futurehosp Logo
  • FHJ Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About FHJ
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

A mixed-methods review of how quality improvement is represent in the UK postgraduate medical curricula

Rebecca Smith
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/fhj.7.1.s106
Future Healthc J February 2020
Rebecca Smith
ASouthampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Introduction

Today's medical curricula shape the institutional culture of tomorrow. There is an opportunity within the medical curricula to embed improvement methodology at the heart of practice, and ignite meaningful change throughout the health service. Therefore, it is imperative that quality improvement (QI) is well-characterised in the medical curricula.

Aim

To determine how QI is represented in postgraduate medical curricula.

Method

Sixty postgraduates’ medical curricula and decision aides were reviewed. Text related to audit or quality improvement was extracted and coded for thematic analysis. QI engagement assessment measures were also reviewed.

Results

There is a significant variation between training programmes with regard to the number of audits or QI projects expected of trainees.

The text of the curricula was broadly congruent. Common themes included: the PDSA cycle, involvement of the multidisciplinary team and clinical governance.

Conclusion

QI should be pervasive across all healthcare settings. Despite this, there is considerable variation in the requirements for junior doctors in different training programmes. This suggests a lack of consensus on how many projects constitute an appropriate level of experience. Therefore, it is worth considering if there are potentially more meaningful methods of ensuring exposure to QI methodology.

Many curricula require a progression from participation in QI, in formative years, to leading a project and then simply supervising. This hierarchical view does follow a logical progression, but risks ingraining the damaging assumptions that a senior doctor's role in QI should be passive. Similarly, this progression encourages trainees to pursue leadership of small projects with limited impact, rather than become a participant in larger scale projects that are more likely to deliver change.

These curricula bear the hallmarks of an assessment methodology that needs to be administered in a standardised fashion, efficiently, to a large population. These assessment metrics have led trainees to realign their perception of QI, and temper their ambitions for change. As a result, only a minority of trainee interventions have a permanent positive impact, despite significant amounts of time being invested by trainees.

Recommendations for curriculum redesign

  • Remove the arbitrary requirement for engagement with a certain number of projects and allow a wider range of evidence for engagement, such as: conference attendance, online education and involvement with ongoing iterative projects.

  • Remove hierarchical terms from the QI curriculum.

  • Consider whether cross-specialty collaboration is required in the setting of assessment metrics, to reduce the variability between training programmes.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2020. All rights reserved.
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
A mixed-methods review of how quality improvement is represent in the UK postgraduate medical curricula
Rebecca Smith
Future Healthc J Feb 2020, 7 (Suppl 1) s106; DOI: 10.7861/fhj.7.1.s106

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A mixed-methods review of how quality improvement is represent in the UK postgraduate medical curricula
Rebecca Smith
Future Healthc J Feb 2020, 7 (Suppl 1) s106; DOI: 10.7861/fhj.7.1.s106
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Introduction
    • Aim
    • Method
    • Results
    • Conclusion
    • Recommendations for curriculum redesign
    • Conflicts of interest
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Millennial learners – a blended approach to simulation for sepsis
  • Preparing to be the medical registrar on call: the evolution of a simulation programme
  • Mind wandering affects learning – students’ perspective
Show more Education, Training and medical professionalism

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home

Other Services

  • Advertising
futurehosp Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians