↓ Skip to main content

Professionalism and non-technical skills in Radiology in the UK: a review of the national curriculum

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Professionalism and non-technical skills in Radiology in the UK: a review of the national curriculum
Published in
BMC Research Notes, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3200-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. Daley, D. Bister, S. Markless, P. Set

Abstract

To drive quality and safe clinical practice, professional values and non-technical skills need to be explicit in all postgraduate medical curricula and appropriate assessment tools should be available for teachers to apply. We interrogate a national Radiology curriculum for content on professionalism and assessment tools, comparing it with the Royal College of Physicians' 2005 document. We found that whilst the knowledge for practising with professional values is embedded in the curriculum, the skills that have to be acquired have not been comprehensively developed. This is reflected in the restricted assessment tools that are mapped to each generic area. The terminology used in the Radiology curriculum was varied and the most frequently used descriptor for professionalism or behaviours pertaining to non-technical aspects was Good Medical Practice; a term used by our regulator, the General Medical Council, and to which our curriculum is mapped. If terminology is to be standardized in Britain collaboration with our regulator is key. We need standardized terminology to permit effective research and sharing of best practice. The Radiology curriculum encompasses all the values set out in the seminal document produced by the Royal College of Physicians in 2005, Doctors in society: medical professionalism in a changing world.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Librarian 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 14 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 15 38%