↓ Skip to main content

Foundation doctors’ induction experiences

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Foundation doctors’ induction experiences
Published in
BMC Medical Education, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0395-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Miles, Joanne Kellett, Sam J. Leinster

Abstract

It is well established that trainee doctors struggle with the transition from medical school to starting work and feel unprepared for many aspects of their new role. There is evidence that suitable induction experiences improve competence and confidence, but available data indicate that trainee doctors on the UK Foundation Programme are commonly not experiencing useful inductions. The aim of the reported research was to explore trainee doctors' experiences with induction during their first year of the Foundation Programme to identify the most useful characteristics. A questionnaire was designed to explore trainee doctors' experiences with induction at two points during their first Foundation year, during the first and third of three rotations, to enable all induction experiences on offer during the year to be surveyed. Data were collected using an anonymous questionnaire distributed during a teaching session, with an online version available for those trainees not present. Questions gathered information about characteristics of the inductions, usefulness of components of the inductions and what gaps exist. 192 Foundation trainee doctors completed the questionnaire during Rotation 1 and 165 during Rotation 3. The findings indicated that induction experiences at the beginning of the year, including the local Preparation for Professional Practice week, were more useful than those received for later rotations. Longer inductions were more useful than shorter. Departmental inductions were generally only moderately helpful and they missed many important characteristics. Gaps in their inductions identified by many trainees matched those aspects judged to be most useful by those trainees who had experienced these characteristics. Many Foundation trainee doctors are experiencing inadequate inductions, notably at the department level. Trainees are starting rotations in new departments without rudimentary knowledge about their role and responsibilities in that department, where to find equipment and documentation, who to contact and how to contact them, local preferences, policies and procedures. Unsurprisingly, trainees who do receive such information in their inductions regard it as highly useful. Action is urgently needed to improve departmental inductions so that all trainees have the information they require to work confidently and competently in each new department they rotate into.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 55%
Unspecified 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2015.
All research outputs
#7,406,224
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,325
of 3,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,182
of 263,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#16
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.