Endoscopy is an important diagnostic and therapeutic procedure that demands high levels of cognitive and technical skill to perform effectively. Surprisingly little is known about how endoscopy is best taught and training is often inadequate. The aims of this study were to explore the learning experiences of endoscopy trainees to improve our understanding of current training. Following the use of an initial focus group to generate appropriate themes semi-structured interviews were performed on 10 trainees to assess their learning experiences. Many different components of the learning experience were identified; one-to-one supervised performance forms the basis for teaching but is often sub-optimal; endoscopy learners experience anxiety and find re-adopting the role of novice difficult; motivation, clear explanation and feedback are crucial to learning; breaking down endoscopy training into segments is seen as valuable and as learners progress a gradual withdrawal of supervision is appreciated. Several of the issues contributing to a positive learning experience relate closely to published evidence and theory relating to skills teaching from other fields. A model identifying the key elements of endoscopy learning is proposed. Further work to apply and test the findings from this study should lead to improved endoscopy training.

This study raises concerns about the aims and functions of courses offering qualifications in medical education. It identifies a number of obstacles to the development of educational researchers who are skilled in the philosophical underpinnings of research activity or equipped to undertake educational research that is of a quality sufficient to withstand the scrutiny of the authors' scientific and clinical counterparts. We argue that if research into medical education is to thrive, it requires the full commitment of all those who are engaged in teaching the topic and supporting researchers.

ObjectivesAn increase in patients with long-term conditions and complex care needs presents new challenges to healthcare providers around the developed world. In response, more broad-based training programmes have developed to better prepare trainees for the changing landscape of healthcare delivery. This paper focuses on qualitative elements of a longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation of the postgraduate, post-Foundation Broad-Based Training (BBT) programme in England. It aims to provide a qualitative analysis of trainees' evaluations of whether the programme meets its intentions to develop practitioners adept at managing complex cases, patient focused care, specialty integration and conviction in career choice. We also identify unintended consequences.Setting9 focus groups of BBT trainees were held over a 12-month period. Discussions were audio-recorded and subjected to directed content analysis. Data were collected from trainees across all 7 participating regions: East Midlands; West Midlands; Severn; Northern; North Western; Yorkshire and Humber; Kent, Surry and Sussex.ParticipantsFocus group participants (61 in total) from the first and second cohorts of BBT.ResultsEvidence from trainees indicated that the programme was meeting its aims: trainees valued the extra time to decide on their onward career specialty, having a wider experience and developing a more integrated perspective. They thought of themselves as different and perceived that others they worked alongside also saw them as different. Being different meant benefitting from novel training experiences and opportunities for self-development. However, unintended consequences were feelings of isolation, and uncertainty about professional identity.ConclusionsBy spanning boundaries between specialties, trainee generalists have the potential to improve experiences and outcomes for patients with complex health needs. However, the sense of isolation will inhibit this potential. We employ the concept of ‘belongingness’ to identify challenges related to the implementation of generalist training programmes within existing structures of healthcare provision.

The variance in research methods training and support raises a number of issues in relation to quality standards. The medical education community needs to engage in open and critical dialogue around the whole constellation of paradigms, methods and activities that pertain in educational research. Unless or until we address these deeper concerns, research into medical education will suffer through a lack of design flair, implementation and rigour.

Background Rising numbers of patients with multiple-conditions and complex care needs mean that it is increasingly important for doctors from different specialty areas to work together, alongside other members of the multi-disciplinary team, to provide patient centred care. However, intra-professional boundaries and silos within the medical profession may challenge holistic approaches to patient care. Methods We used Q methodology to examine how postgraduate trainees ( n = 38) on a range of different specialty programmes in England and Wales could be grouped based on their rankings of 40 statements about ‘being a good doctor’. Themes covered in the Q-set include: generalism (breadth) and specialism (depth), interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinary team working, patient-centredness, and managing complex care needs. Results A by-person factor analysis enabled us to map distinct perspectives within our participant group (P-set). Despite high levels of overall commonality, three groups of trainees emerged, each with a clear perspective on being a good doctor. We describe the first group as ‘generalists’: team-players with a collegial and patient-centred approach to their role. The second group of ‘general specialists’ aspired to be specialists but with a generalist and patient-centred approach to care within their specialty area. Both these two groups can be contrasted to those in the third ‘specialist’ group, who had a more singular focus on how their specialty can help the patient. Conclusions Whilst distinct, the priorities and values of trainees in this study share some important aspects. The results of our Q-sort analysis suggest that it may be helpful to understand the relationship between generalism and specialism as less of a dichotomy and more of a continuum that transcends primary and secondary care settings. A nuanced understanding of trainee views on being a good doctor, across different specialties, may help us to bridge gaps and foster interdisciplinary working.