Background: The failure of some high-income countries to retain their medical graduates is one driver of doctor immigration from low- and middle-income countries. Ireland, which attracts many international medical graduates, implemented a doctor retention strategy from early 2015. This study measures junior doctors’ migration intentions, the reasons they leave and likelihood of them returning. The aim is to identify the characteristics and patterns of doctors who plan to emigrate to inform targeted measures to retain these doctors. Methods: A national sample of 1148 junior hospital doctors completed an online survey in early 2018, eliciting their experiences of training and working conditions. Respondents were asked to choose between the following career options: remain in Ireland, go and return, go and stay away, or quit medicine. Bivariate analyses and a two-stage multivariable analysis were used to model the factors associated with these outcomes. Results: 45% of respondents planned to remain in Ireland, 35% leave but return later, 17% leave and not return; and 3% to quit medicine. An intention to go abroad versus remain in Ireland was independently associated (P<.05) with the doctor being under 30 years (odds ratio [OR]=1.09 per year under 30), a non-European Union (EU) national (OR=1.54), a trainee (OR=1.50), and with hospital specialization, especially in Anesthesiology (OR=5.09). Respondents were more likely to remain if they had experienced improvements in supervision and training costs. Intention to go abroad and not return versus go and return was independently associated (P<.05) with: age over 30 years (OR=1.16 per year over 30); being a non-EU (OR=9.85) or non-Irish EU (OR=3.42) national; having trained through a graduate entry pathway (OR=2.17), specializing in Psychiatry (OR=4.76) and reporting that mentoring had become worse (OR=5.85). Conclusion: Ireland’s doctor retention strategy has not addressed the root causes of poor training and working experiences in Irish hospitals. It needs a more diversified retention strategy that addresses under-staffing, facilitates circular migration by younger trainees who choose to train abroad, identifies and addresses specialty-specific factors, and builds mentoring linkages between trainees and senior specialists.

No abstract

BackgroundEmigration of domestically-trained health professionals is widespread, including in Ireland which has the highest rate of medical graduates in the OECD. Ireland’s failure to retain graduates necessitates high levels of international recruitment. This study aimed to identify factors associated with recently graduated doctors’ intention to migrate, focusing on their work experiences during the mandatory post-graduation year, their wellbeing, and their perceptions of postgraduate training in Ireland.MethodsA baseline survey was administered online to all final year students in Ireland’s six medical schools. A subsequent sweep surveyed those who consented to follow-up (n = 483) during the final month of first year of practice.ResultsOf the 232 respondents (48% response rate), 210 (94%) were Irish passport holders. Of these, only 36% intended to remain in Ireland after their internship, 57% intended to leave but return later, and 7% intended to leave permanently. A strong predictor of intention was study pathway: 60% of Graduate Entry Medicine (GEM) graduates and 25% of Direct Entry Medicine (DEM) graduates intended to remain in Ireland. Equal proportions intended to leave permanently (8% DEM, 6% GEM). Being a GEM graduate significantly reduced the likelihood of leaving to return (relative risk ratio (RRR) 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.11–0.39), p < 0.001).When adjusted for study pathway, a negative experience as an intern increased the likelihood of leaving to return (RRR 1.16 CI (1.00–1.34), p = 0.043) and leaving permanently (1.54 (1.15–2.04), p = 0.003). Similarly, experience of callousness was associated with leaving to return (1.23 (1.03–1.46), p = 0.023) and leaving permanently (1.77 (1.24–2.53), p = 0.002), as was burnout with leaving permanently (1.57 (1.08–2.27), p = 0.017). Those planning to specialise in Medicine versus General Practice were more likely to leave and return (3.01 (1.09–8.34), p = 0.034). Those with negative perceptions of training in Ireland were more likely to leave and return (1.16 (1.01–1.34), p = 0.037); a positive perception reduced the likelihood of leaving permanently (0.50 (0.26–0.94), p = 0.032).ConclusionsIncreasing GEM training places might improve Ireland’s retention of domestically-trained doctors, reducing reliance on non-EU-trained doctors. However, improvements in the working experiences, perceptions of training, and protection of wellbeing are essential for retaining this highly sought-after and geographically mobile cohort.

Background Despite being a vital part of medical workforce planning and development, how medical students and graduates choose their career specialty is still not well understood. This study aimed to identify the factors medical graduates consider important influences in their choice of specialty after their first year of practice, and to test the validity of relying on respondent recall to measure changes in specialty choice. Methods The baseline survey was administered online to all final year students in Ireland’s six medical schools. Those who consented to follow-up (n = 483) were surveyed 18 months later (June 2018), during the final month of first year of practice. Results The baseline survey had a 67% (n = 483) response rate. At the follow-up survey, (n = 232, 48% response rate) the top specialty choices were: Medicine, n = 54 (26%); Surgery, n = 34 (16%); General Practice, n = 28 (13%); Anaesthesia, n = 16 (8%) and Paediatrics, n = 14 (7%). Of the 49 respondents (28%) reporting a change of specialty since baseline, 13 (27%) selected the same specialty in both surveys; of the 121 (69%) reporting no change, 22 (18%) selected a different specialty at follow-up. Over 90% of respondents rated as ‘important or ‘very important’: ‘Own aptitude’, ‘Work-life balance’ and ‘What I really want to do’. Over 75% rated as ‘not at all’, or ‘not very important’ ‘Current financial debt’ and ‘Inclinations before medical school’. When adjusted for sex and age, compared with Medicine, General Practice rated as more important: continuity of patient care (RRR 3.20 CI(1.59–6.41), p = 0.001); working hours/conditions (RRR 4.61 CI(1.03–20.60), p = 0.045) and a career that fit their domestic circumstances (RRR 3.19 CI(1.27–8.02), p = 0.014). Those choosing Surgery rated as less important: patient contact (RRR 0.56 CI(0.33–0.95), p = 0.033) and working hours/conditions (RRR 0.55 CI(0.31–0.96), p = 0.035). Conclusions The different demographic and motivational profiles by specialty choice are consistent with other studies suggesting a distinct profile for doctors intending to enter General Practice. In addition, our results suggest longitudinal study designs guard against recall bias and so provide more robust medical workforce models to inform and direct recruitment drives and interventions in future medical workforce planning.

This article is part of the Research Topic ‘Health Systems Recovery in the Context of COVID-19 and Protracted Conflict.’The COVID-19 pandemic presented a challenge to health systems and exposed weaknesses in public health capacities globally. As Ireland looks to recovery, strengthening public health capacities to support health systems resilience has been identified as a priority. The Essential Public Health Functions (EPHFs) provide an integrated approach to health systems strengthening with allied sectors and their operationalization supports health systems and multi-sectoral engagement to meet population needs and anticipate evolving demands. The Health Systems Resilience team (World Health Organization, HQ) in collaboration with the Department of Health (Ireland) developed a novel approach to the assessment of the EPHFs in Ireland. The approach involved a strategic and focused review of the delivery and consideration of EPHFs in relation to policy and planning, infrastructure, service delivery, coordination and integration, monitoring and evaluation and learning. Informed by a literature review and key document search, key stakeholder mapping and key informant interviews, lessons learned from experience with COVID-19 nationally and internationally, strengths as well as potential areas of improvement to optimize delivery of EPHFs were identified. Mapping of the EPHFs in Ireland revealed that there is evidence of delivery of all 12 EPHFs to varying degrees; however a number of challenges were identified, as well as numerous strengths and opportunities. Recommendations to optimize the delivery of EPHFs in Ireland include to integrate and coordinate EPHFs, increase the visibility of the public health agenda, leverage existing mechanisms, recognize and develop the workforce, and address issues with the Health Information System. There is a public health reform process currently underway in Ireland, with some of these recommendations already being addressed. The findings of this process can help further inform and support the reform process. Given the current focus on strengthening public health capacities globally, the findings in Ireland have applicability and relevance in other WHO regions and member states for health systems recovery and building back better, fairer and more resilient health systems.